■ 

1 



mi 



ll ■ 



■ 







"-,\v 



CHURCH DISCUSSION: 



Baptists and Disciples. 



THE RAY AND LUCAS DEBATE. 



Address, Elder D. B. RAY, La Grange, Missouri, 

FOR BOOKS AND AGENCIES. 



oJ 






" Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. "—Rev. xxi. 9. 



CINCINNATI: ^ 
I^iiblisiLed. for tlxe -Aju/fclior. 



GEO. E. STEVENS & CO , 
PUBLISHERS, BOOKSELLERS AND STATIONERS. 

1873. 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1873, 

By D. B. KAY, 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



Stereotyped by 

Ogden, Campbell & Company, 

176 Elm St., Cin., 0. 



PEEFAOE. 



It is universally known and admitted that, in the scientific world, 
discussion has proved to be one potent means for the development 
of truth. And it is generally conceded, Catholics excepted, that 
so long as men differ so widely in regard to the commands of our 
Saviour, the church of Christ, and even the plan of salvation, religious 
discussion is right and necessary. And if it is legitimate to debate 
our differences through the pulpit and the press, such discussions sure- 
ly can not be wrong when conducted in the presence of a living audi- 
ence. Religious discussions for past centuries have generally turned 
on the points of doctrine and ordinances ; but it appears that the time 
has come for " the battle of the churches." The conflict is no longer 
confined to a doctrine, or rite, or ceremony in religion, but it is now 
the grand question of church identity. The timid may shrink from the 
contest, but, nevertheless, it is upon us, and must be met. We now 
offer to the public, in the following work, the only real Church Dis- 
cussion in the form of a debate now in print. What is the Church of 
Jesus Christ? and where is it to be found? are questions which must 
deeply interest every lover of truth. " Come and see," is the 
inspired invitation. 

The JX^mtarcte, Elder D. B. Ray, fourth son of Dennis Ray, was 
born in Hickman County, Ky., March 30th, 1830. He was bap- 
tized upon a profession of faith in Christ (by Elder W. White), and 
united with the Little Obion Baptist Church, near his father's resi- 
dence, on the 16th day of October, 1844. He entered the ministry 
in the year 1856. His ministerial labors were mostly confined to 
West Kentucky and West Tennessee till the summer of 1870, when he 
removed from Humboldt, Tennessee (in which state he resided near 
ten years), to become associated with President A. S. Worrell, as 
editor of the Baptist Sentinel. Elder Ray has, since this discussion, 
removed from near Lexington, Ky., to La Grange, Lewis County, Mo., 
where his correspondents will address him. Elder Ray is the author 
of the Text- Book on Campbellism, which has reached the sixth 
edition. He is also the author of the Baptist Succession, which 
hns reached the fifth edition in a very short time. Elder D. B Ray 
has engaged in twenty oral discussions — eight with the Methodists, 
and twelve with the 4t Disciples." Among the Methodists, he has en- 
gaged in discussion, may be named, J. B. McCutchen, of West Ken- 
tucky, Dr. Gilford Jones, of Memphis, Tennessee, Elder N. H. Lee, of 

iii 



iv (Preface. 

Kentucky, Elder G. H. Hays, of Kentucky, and Mr. C. W. Miller, of 
Kentucky. Among the "Disciples," he has engaged in discussion, 
may be named, Elder T. W. Caskey, of Mississippi, Elder J. E. Myles 
of Kentucky (though he was pastor at Clarksville, Tennessee, when 
he died), Sam'l A. Kelley, of Kentucky (now of St. Louis, Mo.), and 
Dr. J. R. Lucas, whom 'he has met in three discussions, the last of 
which is contained in this work. 

Dr. J. R. Lucas, A. M., second son of Elder John B. Lucas, was 
born in Pennsylvania, in the year 1831. His father moved to Louis- 
ville, Ky., in 1833. Dr. Lucas has spent the most of his life, thus far, 
in Kentucky. He moved to Missouri about four years past. He is 
now located at Canton, Mo. Dr. Lucas has engaged in eight 
oral discussions — one with a Universalist, three with the Methodists, 
one with the Cumberland Presbyterians, and three with Elder D. B. 
Ray, of the Baptists, the last of which is contained in this work. Dr. 
Lucas has engaged Rev. Jacob Ditzler in discussion for fourteen 
days, J. R. Collinsworth for nine days, and Elder G. W. Hughey, of 
Illinois, for twelve days. At the time of his discussion with Mr. 
Collinsworth he was connected as professor with Princeton College, 
Ky. The degree of A. M. was conferred on Dr. Lucas by Christian 
University, located at Canton, Mo. He has been preaching twenty - 
two years. 

The Church Discussion, as contained in the following work, comes out 
with the full sanction and indorsement of both disputants, as a 
faithful report of the La Grange debate. 

As to the style of the work, it appears with the characteristics of • 
an oral discussion. It does not profess to be governed by the strict- 
est rules of rhetoric. The agreement was settled only about a week 
before the discussion opened. 

As to the origin of the discussion little need be said. Elder Ray 
and Dr. Lucas were the chosen representatives of their respective 
brethren in a four days' discussion, which occurred at Blandinville, 
Illinois. This discussion, which closed on the sixth of March, led to 
the agreement for the Canton and La Grange debates. 

The importance of the issues discussed can not be questioned. The 
impression which prevails with some that there is no material differ- 
ence between the Baptists and the Disciples is shown to be a wide 
mistake. The Church Discussion will be of importance in locating 
the lines of difference between the two denominations. We now send 
forth the Church Discussion with our earnest request that the reader divest 
himself as far as possible, of prejudice, faithfully weigh every argument, 
and follow the dictates o/the truth, whatever may be the cost. 

Respectfully, 

D. B. RAY. 
J. R. LUCAS. 



AGREEMENT FOR DISCUSSION. 



The church organization with which I (D. B. Kay) stand 
identified, known by my brethren as the Baptist Church, pos- 
sesses the Bible characteristics which entitle it to be regarded 
as the visible church, or kingdom, of Jesus Christ. 

D. B. RAY, Affirms. 

J. E. LUCAS, Denies. 



The church organization with which I (J. R. Lucas) stand 
identified, known by my brethren as the Christian Church, 
possesses the Bible characteristics which entitle it to be re- 
garded as the visible church, or kingdom, of Jesus Christ. 

J. R. LUCAS, Affirms 
D. B. RAY, Denies. 



The undersigned agree to publicly discuss the above ques- 
tions, in the order stated, in Canton, Mo., to begin on Mon- 
day, March 17, 1872, at 6 o'clock P.M. 

We agree, in the proposed discussion, to be governed by the 
rules for discussion as laid down in Hedges' Logic. 

Each disputant to select a moderator, and the two, thus se- 
lected, to select a President. 

The opening address of each affirmant, and the immediate 
reply thereto, may occupy one hour ; subsequent addresses 
may occupy half an hour ; each proposition to be discussed 
twelve hours. On the final negative, no new matter shall be 
introduced. 



Indorsements. 



It is understood that D. B. Ray has the privilege to have 
the proposed discussion reported and published ; with the un- 
derstanding that he (Ray) bear all the expense of said report- 
ing and publishing, and receive all profits, emoluments, etc., 
arising from the right and sale of said publication. A certi- 
fied copy, from the reporter, to be submitted to the disputants, 
and published according to the certified copy of the reporter, 
the disputants reserving the right to correct all grammatical 
errors. 

Each disputant to furnish an indorsement by their respec- 
tive churches, as their respective representation. 

The above propositions, subject to the above rules, etc., to be 
discussed by us in Lagrange, Mo.; to begin immediately after 
the close of the discussion in Canton. 

D. B. RAY. 
J. R. LUCAS. 



INDORSEMENTS. 



At a called meeting of the Baptist Church, of Canton, 
Mo., the following preamble and resolutions were unanimously 
adopted : 

Whereas, an agreement has been entered into between the 
Baptists and Disciples of this place, to have a discussion on the 
church issues, in order to its publication ; therefore, be it 

" Resolved, That this church heartily and fully indorse Elder 
D. B. Ray, of Kentucky, as a worthy Christian gentleman, 
and is fully qualified to represent us in the proposed discussion, 
and that we request the Disciples to come forward with their 
representative man, that the debate may proceed at once. 



Indorsements. 



" Resolved , That the following indorsement from prominent 
ministers of Kentucky (brother Ray's native State) be pre- 
sented to the people of this vicinity : 

"Louisville, Kt., May 13, 1872. 

" We, the undersigned Baptist ministers, take pleasure in 
indorsing and recommending Elder D. B. Bay as a high-toned 
Christian gentleman, and an able and competent advocate and 
defender of Baptist principles and practice. 

" S. L. HELM, D.D., Pastor of East Church. 

" J. S. COLEMAN, D.D., Mod. of Gen. Association. 

" J. M. PEAY, Pastor of S. CarroUton, Ky. 

" J. S. GATTON, Pastor Elizabethtown. 

" JOHN JAMES, Pastor of Sonora, Kentucky." 



Also, indorsements from B. T. Dillard, D.D. ; Cad. Lewis, 
D.D. ; L. B. Woolfork; A. S. Worrell, D.D., editor of Western 
Recorder-, A. C. Caperton, D.D.; J. H. Spencer, D.D.; George 
Hunt, of Lexington, Ky. ; J. M. Frost, of Covington, Ky. ; 
W. H. Felix, Covington, Ky., together with an indorsement 
of his books from the denominational papers. 



"Christian Church, Canton, Mo., March 16, 1873. 

" Whereas, arrangements have been entered into between 
the Baptists and Christians of this place, for a discussion to be 
published ; be it 

"Resolved, That we, as a body, do hereby fully and unequivo- 
cally indorse Bro. J. R. Lucas, as a refined gentleman, a 
thorough scholar, a high-minded Christian, and in every way 
fully qualified to represent us in said discussion. 

" Done by order of the congregation. 

" D. P. HENDERSON, Chairman. 

" O. C. Clay, Sec. pro tern." 



INTRODUCTION. 



Lagrange, Mo., March 25, 1873. 

The meeting was called to order by President Cook, of the 
Lagrange College, and Eev. Dr. Henderson offered prayer. 

President Smith, of Christian University, at Canton, then 
said: 

The gentlemen engaging in this debate agree to abide by 
the rules governing discussion, as laid down in Hedges' Logic. 
These rules are in possession of the Moderators, and we will 
try, to the best of our ability and judgment, to enforce them, 
if the necessity should arise. 

The proposition for discussion this evening is, "Does the 
church organization with which I, J. It. Lucas, stand identified, 
known by my brethren as the Christian Church, possess the 
Bible characteristics which entitle it to be regarded as the 
visible church, or kingdom, of Jesus Christ ?* 

Dr. Lucas will occupy one hour in affirming the proposition. 
Dr. Eay will occupy one hour denying the proposition ; after 
which there will be half-hour addresses in succession. Dr. 
Lucas in the affirmative. 



OPENING ADDRESS BY DR. LUCAS. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen : We appear before you to-night for the purpose 
of affirming and trying to establish the proposition that you 
have just heard read. And before I proceed to my argument 
in favor of the proposition, I wish to say that the proposition 
I believe as firmly as I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the 
Son of God, and shall labor to establish its truth in your minds 
by arguments that we shall draw from the Word of God. And 
we wish to present before your minds this thought : that things 
equal to the same thing, are equal to one another ; and if we 
can show that certain characteristics and elements go to make 
up the church of Jesus Christ, and they together are equal to 
the church of Christ, and that we possess those same identical 
characteristics, then they can not be less now than they were 
in the beginning. They are equal to the church of Christ, 
and if we establish what we have undertaken, then our propo- 
sition is true, viz. : that the church with which we stand iden- 
tified, known by my brethren as the Christian church, is, be- 
yond all successful contradiction, the visible church, or king- 
dom, of Jesus the Christ. 

I wish to say with regard to the proposition that there are 
but few terms in the proposition that need any lengthy exposi- 
tion ; and, indeed, none that need a very lengthy explanation. 
The church, as expressed in the proposition, in order that you 
may get it fully before your minds, I would state, is by some 
sometimes called Disciples, sometimes called Reformers. In 
the proposition it is called the Christian church— the church, 



10 (Dr. Lucas' First Address. 

or kingdom, of Jesus Christ — the visible church or king- 
dom of Jesus, the Christ — the Son of the living God ; and 
I wish to state further that we do not at all base our claims 
upon the idea of succession ; that is, that there can be estab- 
lished a continuous chain, composed of links embracing each 
successive generation, that have existed upon the face of 
the earth since the establishment of the kingdom by Jesus 
Christ. We found not our claim upon this idea of succession ; 
but, as before stated, if we possess the same characteristics 
possessed by the church of Christ at the time of its establish- 
ment, it can be no less now than it was then the church of 
Christ. 

But, with regard to this idea of succession, Mr. Bennedict, 
a Baptist author — the author of the " History of the Baptists" 
— on page 51, expresses precisely what I wish to express with 
regard to succession. He says: "I shall not attempt" — 
with regard to the Baptist Church — " I shall not attempt 
to trace a continuous line of churches, as we can for a few 
centuries past in Europe or America. This is a kind of 
succession to which we have never laid claim, and, of course, 
I make no effort to prove it. We place no kind of reliance 
on this sort of testimony for the soundness of our faith, or the 
validity of our own administrations." 

This, however, is what I desire to present as expressive of 
the point — the point that we desire to impress upon your minds 
to-night. We indorse and adopt the language just read as our 
own language with regard to the case now before us. 

And I wish to state further, before I proceed to the investi- 
gation of those Scriptures sustaining my position, that if the 
proposition be not true, I desire, in my inmost heart, that my 
worthy friend shall show its fallacy ; for we should all have 
before our mind that motto : The truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth; and we should realize that finally we 
shall stand before God, and shall give an account to the Di- 



(Dr. Lucas' First Address. 11 

•vine One, for what we shall say, and for what we do ; that we 
must render an impartial account to that One, who can not be 
deceived, "who alone searcheth the hearts and trieththe reins 
of the children of men." We should then enter upon this in- 
vestigation with this solemn reflection bearing upon our 
minds and hearts. 

Then I propose to establish at once the truth of the propo- 
sition that you have had read in your hearing to-night. And 
the first argument to which I invite your attention is this : 
Our theory of commencement is in harmony with the Scrip- 
tures on the subject of the beginning — or, in other words, is just 
the Scriptures on the subject — no more and no less. But, in 
order to establish the truth of the point now before you, and 
to show you that our argument is properly founded, we call 
your attention to a few passages which may be found in the 
Old Testament Scriptures, and we will read, first, from Isaiah, 
ii. 2, 3. " And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the 
mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top 
of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills ; and all 
nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and 
say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, 
to the house of the God of Jacob ; and he will teach us of 
his ways, and we will walk in his paths : for out of Zion shall 
go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." 
Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord 
from Jerusalem. In connection with this passage, I quote in 
your hearing a portion of Scripture found in Micah iv. 1, 2 ; 
almost indentically the same language: "But in the 
last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of 
the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the 
mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills ; and 
people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come, and 
say, Conje, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and 
to the house of the God of Jacob ; and he will teach us of 



12 (Dr. Lucas' First Address. 

his ways, and we will walk in his paths : for the law shall go" 
forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. " 

These prophesies thus present especially this truth : that the 
time will come when the house of the Lord, or the church 
of the living God shall be established — looking to the future ; 
and when established, the law shall go forth of Zion, and the 
word of the Lord from Jerusalem. That the establishment 
of the kingdom here is future no one can for a moment deny ; 
and that Jerusalem is the place whence the law shall start, the 
proclamation of the kingdom of Jesus Christ shall be made, is 
clearly presented in these passages from the prophets. 

But, in connection with these passages, we call your attention 
now to the great commission given by the Lord to the apos- 
tles, as recorded in Luke's record, the 24th chapter, and the 
46th and 47th verses, where we have these words : " Thus it 
is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise 
from the dead the third day : And that repentance and re- 
mission of sins should be preached in his name among all 
nations, beginning at Jerusalem." 

Beginning at Jerusalem, in accordance with the predictions 
of the prophets to which your minds have been invited. And 
he said unto them — Jesus unto the apostles — thus it is writ- 
ten ; and after he had given them this commission we find re- 
corded in the 49th verse of the same chapter, where Jesus 
presents to his disciples — submits his last charge and promise 
before he left the world : " And, behold, I send the promise 
of my Father upon you : but tarry ye in the city of Jeru- 
salem, until ye be endued with power from on high." 

Here, then, you discover the prophets point to Jerusalem. 
Jesus says that the first proclamation shall come forth from 
Jerusalem, or beginning at Jerusalem, and now he commands 
his apostles to tarry in Jerusalem until they are endued with 
power from on high, then the Spirit shall descend that is to 
qualify them for their great work, that is, to guide them into 



(Dr. Lucas' First Address. 13 

all truth, and bring to their remembrance all things that the 
Lord had commanded them. But, in connection with these 
passages, we call your attention to Acts i. 3, 4 : "To whom" 
— that is the aspostles — "he also shewed himself alive 
after his passion, by many infallible proofs, being seen 
of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertain- 
ing to the kingdom of God : and, being assembled together 
with them, commanded them that they should not depart from 
Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith 
he, ye have heard of me." 

In connection with this, we will read the 8th verse of this 
chapter : " But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy 
Ghost has come upon you : and ye shall be witnesses unto 
me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judsea, and in Samaria, and 
unto the uttermost part of the earth." 

Now we come to Acts ii. 1-4 : "And when the day of Pen- 
tecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one 
place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a 
rushing, mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they 
were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues 
like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were 
all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other 
tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." 

Now hear the 16th and 17th verses of the same chap- 
ter. Here the apostle Peter speaks. He says: "But 
this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will 
pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." 

The prophets, to which we have already referred, have de- 
clared that in the last days the mountain of the Lord's house 
shall be established, and that the law shall go forth of Zion, 
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, and when the 
apostles were qualified by the descent of the Spirit for the 
great work assigned them by their Lord, then the proclama- 



14 (Dr. Lucas' First Address. 

tion begins, and the fulfillment here of the prophesy of Joel is 
but a reference to the fulfillment of the thoughts presented in 
the prophesies first quoted. In the last days, here, then, Peter 
says, that this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel. 
In the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh ; 
and I wish to call your attention to this point, that while the 
prophets, looking forward, spoke of the last days, they have a 
reference to the same point or points of time in the use of 
these terms; and when we find this side of the prophets, 
apostles, or others, speaking of the last days, we do not, of 
course, suppose that they refer to the same things to which the 
prophets referred, though they use the same language. When 
they of this present dispensation speak of the last days, they 
speak of the winding up of this dispensation, and the introduc- 
tion of one more glorious ; while the prophets using those 
terms speak of the winding up of that dispensation to which 
they belonged, and the introduction of the new, or Christian, 
dispensation. 

But we now call your attention to further Scripture in proof 
of the point we have now before us. We will now call your 
attention to the reading of Acts xi. 14, 15 : " Who" — that is 
Peter — " shall tell thee words" — when he went to the house 
of Cornelius — "who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and 
all thy house shall be saved. And as I began to speak, 
the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." 
Fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Now, we have 
seen that the proclamation was to begin at Jerusalem. There 
the Spirit was given, and here Peter fixes the time of begin- 
ning beyond all controversy, and beyond all doubt, for he 
says, the Holy Spirit fell upon those at the house of Cor- 
nelius, as upon us at the beginning. Very evidently having 
reference to the time when the Spirit descended upon them on 
the first Pentecost after the ascension of the Saviour in the 
city of Jerusalem. Peter, in the term " beginning," here re- 



(Dr. Lucas' First Address. 15 

fers to the same thing precisely that is referred to in the 
commission as given by Luke, when he uses the very same 
term, " beginning at Jerusalem." 

But we now call your attention to some other Scriptures, 
proving that the kingdom of Jesus Christ was not set up in 
the days of John the Baptist, and not until after the death, 
resurrection, and coronation of the Divine Lord. First, the 
proclamation of John the Baptist. When we turn to Mat- 
thew's record of the 3d chapter, and the beginning of the chap- 
ter, we find that the proclamation made by John was this — 
and that is the particular point to which I invite your atten- 
tion — "The kingdom of heaven is at hand!" "The king- 
dom of heaven is at hand." The proclamation of the near 
approach of the kingdom of Jesus, the Christ, did not teach 
or declare in any way that the kingdom was already estab- 
lished. No ; in John's proclamation — it was future. It was 
future. It was drawing near, according to the proclamation 
made by John. And, secondly, you take the first commission 
given to the apostles by the Saviour ; that commission was con- 
fined exclusively to the Jewish people — to the lost sheep of the 
house of Israel. It did not extend to the Gentile world, as the 
second great commission given to the apostles did. This com- 
mission was to every creature, but the first commission given 
to the apostles was confined exclusively to the Jews, and they 
were commanded to preach precisely the same things that were 
proclaimed by John, the harbinger of Jesus, the one sent forth 
to prepare the people for the Lord — for the reception of the 
Lord, and for his kingdom. The apostles were commanded to 
go, and, as they went, they were called upon to preach, say- 
ing, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" — at hand. And if 
we take the seventy, we find that they were commanded to 
preach the same thing — that they did preach precisely the 
same thing. As they went, they said, "The kingdom of 
heaven is at hand." 



16 (Dr. Lucas' First Address. 

But we now call your attention, fourthly, to the prayer 
taught the disciples, as found in Matthew, the 6th chapter and 
10th verse. The point in that prayer, to which we desire es- 
pecially to call your attention, is this : "Thy kingdom come — 
thy kingdom come," and this prayer could not have been ap- 
propriate, if, indeed, the kingdom had already come, unless 
it can be shown that they were called upon to pray for the 
coming of the glorified kingdom, which we are confident can 
not be shown from the language in the prayer. They were 
called upon to pray, "Thy kingdom come," looking to the 
future, and now we state a fact, that in all the divine record, 
and in all the prayers recorded in the New Testament Scrip- 
tures since Jesus has been coronated at the right hand of 
the Majesty on High, this prayer has never been offered up 
this side of the cross. No disciple, so far as the Word of God 
discloses, has prayed, "Thy kingdom come." This prayer 
was offered on the other side of the cross, and when the time 
did come for the establishment of the kingdom, the time 
when it was established on the first Pentecost, after the ascen- 
sion of the Saviour, there we say at that time this prayer was 
answered. The kingdom — the kingdom was established, ac- 
cording to the prayer, and according to the other passages of 
Scripture, to which your minds have been invited. 

But we now call your attention to another class of Scrip- 
tures, as we desire to get all these Scriptures bearing upon 
this subject before your minds, and before my worthy friend, 
at as early a period as possible. We invite your minds to 
some Scriptures found in the record as given by the Evangel- 
ist Luke, and first, to the 27th verse of the 9th chapter. 
Here we have these words : "But I tell you of a truth, there 
be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till 
they see the kingdom of God." 

There be some standing here which shall not taste of death 
till they see the kingdom of God. Now, he is addressiag the 



Or. Lucas' First Address. 17 

apostles. If the kingdom had been already established, they 
had already seen it; for if it was at that time established, 
they were in it ; and if they were in it, they knew that they 
were in it; they had seen it, and Jesus tells them that 
some of them would still be living at the time of the approach 
and at the time of the establishment of his kingdom. 

" There be some standing here that shall not taste of death 
till they see the kingdom of God" — showing that at this time 
it was future and yet not far in the future — within the life- 
time of some of those of his disciples that he addressed. 

Second, to the language found in Luke, 12th chapter and 
the 31st and 32d verses : "But rather seek ye the kingdom 
of God ; and all these things shall be added unto you." "Fear 
not " — and this is the portion of the Scripture to which we 
especially invite your attention — "Fear not, little flock ; for it 
is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." 

He had not yet given to them the kingdom, from the fact 
that the kingdom had not yet come, but He tells them it is 
His good pleasure — that it is the pleasure of the Divine Father 
to give them the kingdom — which shows, beyond all doubt, 
that the kingdom at this time was yet in the future. 

Again, Luke, the 22d chapter, 29th and 30th verses: 
" And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath 
appointed unto me ; that ye may eat and drink at my table in 
my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of 
Israel." 

K"ow, the point to which we desire especially to invite your 
attention is that presented in the 29th verse : "I appoint unto 
you a kingdom," and the word that we have here translated 
by the w T ord " appoint" — diatithemai — is defined to be " cove- 
nant " — to be a promise — and this passage is referred to by 
those who have thus defined the word, in order to show the 
meaning of the word ; that the word means promise — or I 
confer by promise — I promise unto you the kingdom, I prom- 



18 (Dr. Lucas' First Address. 

ise you a kingdom that is yet in the future — that has not yet 
been established, " as my Father hath promised me so prom- 
ise I you a kingdom. 5 ' 

And in connection with this we want to call your attention 
to the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, and we shall 
commence our reading with the 6th verse of the chapter, 
and we will read to the 11th. Here, then, we have these 
words : " When they therefore were come together, they asked 
of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the 
kingdom to Israel ? And he said unto them, It is not for 
you to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath 
put in his own power. But ye shall receive power after that 
the Holy Ghost has come upon you : and ye shall be witnesses 
unto me, both in Jerusalem and in all Judsea, and in Samaria, 
and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he 
had spoken these things, while they beheld he was taken up 
and a cloud received him out of their sight." 

Now, then, here the Lord refers to the establishment of the 
kingdom just a few moments before he ascended to the 
Father to be coronated King of all kings and Lord of all 
lords and rulers— the King of kings, the Lord of lords — 
when he was to be made both Lord and Christ. Here, then, 
he speaks of the kingdom as not having yet been established, 
though it is at the moment, as it were, when he ascended to 
the Father, and if the kingdom had already been established 
and the disciples had not been cognizant of the fact, the Lord 
certainly would have instructed them with regard to it. But, 
then, they understood that the kingdom was yet future, that 
it was not yet established, and the Lord sustained and 
indorsed their idea with regard to the matter. If, at the time 
of the ascension of the Lord, the kingdom was not established, 
the conclusion must force itself upon the minds of all per- 
sons that it was not established before the death of Jesus ; 
it was not established while he was personally here, and it 



(Dr. Lucas' First Address. 19 

was not established in the days of John the Baptist. It 
could not have been, and the language and the facts here pre- 
sented be true. 

And now we call your attention to the passage found in 
Luke, 19th chapter, reading from the 11th to the 16th verses, 
and that is explanatory of all the passages already presented : 
' ' Then came the first, saying Lord, thy pound hath gained 
ten pounds. And he said unto him, Well, thou good ser- 
vant : because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have 
thou authority over ten cities. ,, 

But the passage to which we desire especially to call attention 
is this : "A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive 
for himself a kingdom." That a certain nobleman went into a 
far country to receive the kingdom, and that nobleman we all 
agree — and there will be no controversy between my worthy 
friend and myself with regard to this point — that that noble- 
man represents the Lord — the King of kings, the Lord of 
lords — and as the point is presented that he went into a far 
country to receive the kingdom, it shows that that kingdom 
had not been received prior to his going away. This the par- 
able clearly represents. Therefore the kingdom was not 
established before he went away, and after he had gone to 
the Father and was coronated at the right hand of the Majes- 
ty on High, the King of kings and Lord of lords, according 
to the promise of the Father, he receives his kingdom, and 
he thus establishes that kingdom among his disciples, accord- 
ing to his promise to them ; and he rules now, and will rule 
and reign until all enemies are put under his feet; until the 
kingdoms of this world shall be subdued; until his reign 
shall be recognized ; until he shall, even by the kingdoms of 
the world, be regarded as the great and glorious Lord in 
the Universe of God. 

But we now desire to call your attention, sixthly, to lan- 
guage found in Matthew's record, xvi. 15-20. The Saviour 



20 (Dr. Lucas' First Address. 

there asked the disciples : "Who do men say that I am ?" This 
is the question he propounds ; and they answer : " Some say 
John the Baptist, some Jeremias, some Elias, and some one of 
the prophets." 

But he presents the question directly to them: " But who 
do you say that I am ?" Peter answers : " Thou art the Christ, 
the son of the living God." Jesus responds: " Blessed art 
thou, Simon Bar-jona" — the son of Jonah — "for flesh and 
blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father who is 
in heaven ; and I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon 
this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it." All at once concede that the term 
rock here is used figuratively, and that it stands for Jesus the 
Christ, the son of the living God ; that it represents him, 
that it stands for him in the passage, and consequently we 
have it affirmed, departing from the figure, that upon Christ 
as the foundation the church shall be built, and the gates of 
hell shall not prevail against the great and the glorious foun- 
dation — the rock upon which the church is builded. 

My friend and I differ with regard to our understanding of 
this passage. He says that the pronoun "it" stands for 
" church." My position is that it stands for the rock 
upon which the church is built ; that it stands for the foun- 
dation or rock upon which the church of Jesus Christ is 
made to rest. Build upon this rock, or upon this foundation, 
and this foundation is of such a nature, or of such a charac- 
ter, that the very gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 

I wish to say, however, this, while this passage is before 
your minds, that, grammatically, the pronoun may stand either 
for rock or church ; that it would be just as correct, grammati- 
cally, to make it stand for one as the other, and I presume 
this will not be denied by my worthy friend ; that, grammati- 
cally, church or rock there might be made the antecedent of 
the pronoun "it." And while the pronoun may stand for 



(Dr. Lucas' First Address. 21 

either the one or the other, grammatically, we must make our 
appeal to other Scriptures, in order to ascertain and determine 
fully and clearly the antecedent of the pronoun. 

We should have stated first, that Dr. Clark, and a number 
of others that we might introduce, take the same position that 
we have taken here upon this subject ; and we shall see, when 
we come to investigate the Word of God (the 7th chapter of the 
prophesy of Daniel) we have "it" clearly taught "That the beast 
made war against the saints, and prevailed — that the beast made 
war against the saints, and prevailed;" and in the 13th chapter 
of the revelation made to John, the beloved disciple, while 
upon the isle of Patmos, it is there affirmed that the beast 
made war against the children of God, and overcame them. 
Well, then, if it be true that the beast prevailed against the 
disciples of Jesus, and against the saints, and overcame them, 
and if it be true that there is something — and evidently there 
is something presented here in this passage that can not be pre- 
vailed against, as the beast prevailed against the saints, as the 
beast overcame the children of God — and as the passage says 
that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, it must refer, 
not to the people built upon this foundation, but to the foun- 
dation itself — that the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
the rock upon which the church is founded — shall not prevail 
against the great and glorious foundation. 

And, with this exposition of the passage before the mind, I 
desire to call your attention to this especial point that we have 
in introducing it : "Upon this rock will I build my church." 
Upon this rock will I build my church — looking to the future.- 
It could not then have been built at that time. Will build it 
certainly, does not mean have already built. But it looks to the 
future, as all these other passages, "I will build my church 
upon this foundation" — and this certainly is in accordance 
with the prophesy of Isaiah, as found in the 28th chapter, 
where Jesus is called "the foundation stone," and "chief corner 



22 (Dr. Lucas' First Address. 

stone/' and "tried stone," and he could not be represented as 
the foundation here upon which the church is built, until he 
has been tried — until he has become a "tried stone." I ask 
you how was he tried? We all answer that he was tried 
when he suffered poverty ; that poverty he endured on earth 
when he said: "The foxes have holes, the birds have their 
nests, but the son of man hath not where to lay his head." 

He was tried in the garden, when he then sweat the sweat 
of blood ; when he raised his voice to the Eternal Father ; 
when he exclaimed "my soul is exceeding sorrowful, even 
unto death ;" "O, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass 
from me ; nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done." He 
w r as tried when before Pilate's bar ; when the mock robe was 
placed upon him ; when he was lacerated with the Roman 
scourges ; when he wore the crown of thorns, his tender 
temples being pierced with the thorns, which the crown con- 
tained. He was tried there, he was tried upon Calvary's 
rugged mount, when his tender hands were nailed to the 
cross ; when his feet were spiked fast to it ; when his side 
was pierced ; when he shed his blood ; when he bowed his 
head and died, after having exclaimed to the Father: "My 
God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?" 

This was the "tried stone." This was the chief corner stone 
tried, and he, having endured all this, in connection with his 
temptation while in the world, and the temptations that Satan 
brought, he became the "tried stone," and, consequently, is 
presented as the foundation, tried and secure upon which the 
church is made to rest. Upon this foundation, "I will," says 
Jesus, "build my church." 

But I call your attention, seventhly, to language found in 
Eph. ii. 11-17. And here we have it, I think, very clearly pre- 
sented, that the kingdom of Jesus could not have been estab- 
lished ; the church could not have been set up in the days of 
John, nor during the personal ministry of the Saviour ; could 



(Dr. Lucas' First .Address. 23 

not have been established prior to the death of the Son of God. 
In this passage, then, the closing part of the second chapter 
of Paul's letter to the Ephesians, you have these words : 
"That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens 
from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the 
covenants of promise, having no hope, without God in the 
world : But now in Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes were afar 
off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, 
who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle 
wall of partition between us. Having abolished in his flesh the 
enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordin- 
ances ; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making 
peace." 

Now, here it is affirmed by the passage that the middle 
wall of partition, between the Jew and the Gentile, was broken 
down, was taken away by nailing it to the cross. It was de- 
stroyed in his flesh in the death of Jesus, the Christ, the Son 
of the living God, and when this partition wall was taken 
away, then of the twain one new man was made, so making 
peace. Here was one body — one new body, one new man, 
and every authority that I have ever consulted upon the sub- 
ject — and I have examined quite a number — take the position 
that this one new man, that this one new body, was one new 
church — was one new church — the body of Christ — the 
church — the church of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the liv- 
ing God. 

Now, the point that we make here upon this passage is 
this : That if this one new man, this one new body, this one 
new church, was not made until after the middle wall of par- 
tition was taken away in the death of Jesus, by being nailed to 
the cross, then it could not have been made, it could not have 
been established, it could not have been set up, before the 
death of the Son of God ; but must have looked to a period 
this side of his death, and that period we have shown from the 



24 (Dr. Lucas* First Address. 

prophesies, and from Luke's record of the commission, and 
from other Scriptures, looked to Jerusalem as the place, and 
the time when it was established was when the apostles were 
qualified and endued with power from on high to present the 
claims of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living God ; to or- 
ganize his church, God's kingdom, to establish it in the world, 
and then, according to Peter, the beginning is dated. "Con- 
ferred upon them as upon us, at the beginning," looking to 
Jerusalem as the place. 

And now, with regard to the subject of beginning, I will 
call your attention to these Scriptures, and I wish to read the 
testimony of a few Baptist authors upon the same point, 
showing that they understand this subject, so far as the be- 
ginning of the church and the establishment of the church is 
concerned, precisely as we have presented it for your con- 
sideration to-night. 

Turn to Duncan's History of the Baptists, page 32, where 

you have these words: "The first church established 

among the Jews was at Jerusalem, according to the model of 
which the other churches, subsequently formed among the 
Jewish people, for the most part conformed." 

Now, he says this was the first; this was the first 
established under the administration of our adorable Lord at 
Jerusalem, and, until others were established, this one was 
emphatically the church of Jesus Christ. It was the church 
of Jesus Christ, and embraced the members of the church of 
Jesus Christ, until its spread — until others were formed. 

But we not only call your attention to the testimony of Mr. 
Duncan upon this question, but to other passages upon the 
same subject, where the same point is presented — is acknowl- 
edged. I will next quote the testimony of Mr. Jones, who 
has written an extensive church history, who is also a Bap- 
tist, and Mr. Orchard says he has furnished the world with 
the best, the finest history of the church that ever has been 



(Dr. Lucas' First Address. 25 

given to the world, until the one that he presents makes its 
appearance in the world. Thus he speaks of Jones' history, 
and he says on page 70 (this is more Baptist testimony upon 
the same subject) : 

" As the church at Jerusalem was the first Christian 
1 church," and now there are two points to which I invite your 
attention here. The first is, that he says this was the first 
church, and not only so, but he says it was the first Christian 
church. He calls it by the name "Christian church" — "It 
w T as the first Christian church established by the ministry of 
the apostles, so it was designed to serve as a model to all suc- 
ceeding churches to the end of the world." 

And Orchard, a Baptist historian, makes the same state- 
ment ; and I want to call your attention now to the statement 
of Neander, a historian acknowledged as one possessed of 
largeness of mind and of great information, a man occupying 
an exalted position in the intellectual and religious world. 
He uses these words, on page 7: " It is because that great 
event was prefigured and prepared for, and was accomplished at 
the time of the first Pentecost" — the first Pentecost after the 
ascension of our Lord — " was prefigured and prepared for, 
and was accomplished at the first Pentecost celebrated by the 
disciples after the Saviours departure, that this feast is of so 
great significance as marking the commencement of the first 
apostolic church." 

Then we have given you, upon this subject, Isaiah ; we have 
given you Micah ; we have given you Joel ; we have given 
you Matthew ; w T e have given you Luke ; we have given you 
Jesus ; we have given you the apostles ; and, then, in addi- 
tion to all these, we have given you Duncan, and Orchard, 
and Jones, whp are Baptist historians, and Neander, of high 
authority in the religious world, and they sustain the position 
that we have attempted to maintain — that the beginning of 
the church — that first church — the first church was established 



26 (Dr. Lucas' First Address. 

at Jerusalem, on the first Pentecost after tlie ascension of our 
Lord. And, then, we feel that we are right in regard to 
our first argument — that we are right upon the subject of be- 
ginning — the theory concerning the beginning of the king- 
dom of God, or the church of Jesus Christ. 

But we call your attention to the second argument. We 
aver that we are identical with the primitive church upon this 
subject of the foundation. The foundation upon which the 
church was reared, according to the teachings of the apostles 
of Jesus, was Jesus the Christ. " Upon this rock will I build 
my church" — in accordance with the prophesy of Isaiah 
already referred to. [Time Expired.] 



ELDER RAY'S FIRST REPLY. 



Mr. President, Brethren, Moderators, and Eespected 
Congergation : I stand in your presence, denying, em- 
phatically, the proposition which has been read and discussed 
and attempted to be proved by my worthy friend. It affirms 
that the organization with which he stands identified, known 
by his brethren as the Christian Church, is the visible church, 
or kingdom of Christ. 

It is certainly a proposition of great interest ; and, accord- 
ing to the doctrine of his church, one that involves the salva- 
tion of the human family ; because I expect to show, in the 
progress of the investigation, that he contends that out of the 
church is no salvation. Then it behooves us to search — to 
seek diligently for that organization known as the church of 
Christ. 

I do not, however, indorse his position that salvation is to 
be found alone in the kingdom of the Saviour. We agree 
that there is a kingdom — a church of the living God ; and we 
agree in the proposition that the term " church 1 ' is not used 
in its primary sense, having reference to a local congregation, 
but in the larger sense, embracing the idea of kingdom. 
Whether we are authorized from God's Word to use the term 
in this sense or no — it is so defined in the proposition — 
"church or kingdom." 

My friend seems to have forgotten the definition of the 
proposition. 

Before I enter this investigation, I desire to call your atten- 
tion especially to several passages of Scripture, establishing- 



28 Elder (Ray's First (Reply. 

the perpetuity, or succession, if you please, of the organiza- 
tion known as the kingdom of Christ. This has been denied 
in the speech to which we have attentively listened ; and he 
admits that if the succession of the church is proved as cer- 
tain — is established — then his proposition must fail ; at least < 
I understood him in the former discussion so to admit, and 
also to-night. That the kingdom of Jesus Christ has continued from 
the time of its establishment until now, I offer the following 
proofs: Your attention is first invited to the prophesy of 
Daniel ii. 44 : "And in the days of these kings shall the God 
of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed : 
and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall 
break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall 
stand forever." In the 35th verse of the same chapter : "And 
the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and 
filled the whole earth." 

It is affirmed in this prophesy, this declaration of God's 
unchanging word, that the kingdom shall never be destroyed. 
This does not mean it shall be destroyed. It means what it 
says. It is affirmed that it shall stand for ever. This can not 
be interpreted that it' will come to an end ; and that same 
stone that was cut out without hands, which smote the image 
and destroyed it, was at last to become a great mountain and fill 
the whole earth. That stone will not cease to exist from its first 
evolution upon the earth, until it fills the whole world. This 
in itself would establish the truth of the proposition that the 
kingdom is an everlasting kingdom. 

Second proof: We call your attention to 1st Tim. iii. 15 : 
" But if I tarry long, that thou may est know how thou 
oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the 
church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 
I quote this to show that the church is called a house of God, 
the house of God — is called His church. This was admitted 
'by my worthy friend. And, then, in Is. ii. 2, which you have 



Elder (Ray's First (Reply. 29 

heard, we have the following : "And it shall come to pass in 
the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be 
established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted 
above the hills." This is the same Lord's house mentioned by 
Paul to Timothy — not another house ; not one similar to it; 
but this same house of the Lord is to be established in the 
tops of the mountains — above human governments — and na- 
tions shall flow unto it. 

As a third argument, we introduce Dan. vii. 27, the same 
chapter referred to by my friend: "And the kingdom and 
dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole 
heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most 
High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all do- 
minions shall serve and obey him." This is in the same chapter 
where it is said (21st verse), "I beheld, and the same horn 
made war with the saints, and prevailed against them." But 
this papal horn, anti-christ, did not prevail against the king- 
dom. There is a difference, the Doctor should have known, 
between individual saints that were prevailed against and 
slaughtered along the dreary path of ages, and that everlast- 
ing kingdom that should stand for ever. It is nowhere 
declared in God s Word, that the church or the kingdom shall 
be destroyed or prevailed against. 

My fourth proof under the head of the perpetuity of the 
church, is Mat. xvi. 18 : "And I say also unto thee, That thou 
art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ; and 
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." As has been 
already stated, we differ as to the pronoun " it." The gates 
of hell shall not prevail against it He supposes the word 
"it" to refer to rock. But the gates of hell may prevail 
against the church ! Suppose that I dig deep and lay the 
foundation of a house upon a rock, and affirm, that "the 
storms of coming years shall not prevail against it," who would 
for a moment suppose that I was talking about the rock down 



30 Elder (Ray's First (Reply. 

there being prevailed against ? How absurd is the position 
taken ; and it seems to me that the pressure of circumstances 
has forced the interpretation. I wish your attention to a very 
forcible illustration on this subject, found in Mat. vii. 24 : 
"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and 
doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his 
house upon a rock : and the rain descended, and the floods 
came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house ; and it 
fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. " It seems to me 
that he might just as well apply the pronoun "it" here to the 
rock, when it says it fell not, as to apply the pronoun "it" of 
Mat. xvi. 18, to the " rock." Whoever supposed there was 
danger of the gates of hell prevailing against Jesus Christ ? 

Another argument is based upon the great commission as 
given by Mat. xxviii. 19, 20 : " Go ye therefore, and teach all 
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you : and, lo, I am with 
you alway, even unto the end of the world." This public 
preaching and baptizing was the work of the church of the 
living God ; this promise has reference to the church. Jesus 
says, "lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
world." Here the doctrine of the perpetuity and succession of 
the church is affirmed and promised by the Son of God him- 
self. 

My sixth proof is found in Luke i. 33. The angel an- 
nounced to Mary the birth of a saviour, whose name should be 
called Jesus, and affirmed "He shall reign over the house of 
Jacob for ever ; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." 
The double expression "for ever" and "no end" is found 
here, and if the angel of God had intended to teach the per- 
petuity of the church, he could not have found language to 
indicate it stronger than is found here. In our former discus- 
sions the Doctor has failed to notice this passage and give an 



Elder Ray's First (Reply. 31 

answer, as far as I remember now. I wish him to note that 
especially. 

My seventh proof text upon the perpetuity of the church 
is found in Hebrews xii. 28 : f 'Wherefore we receiving a king- 
dom which can not be moved, let us have grace whereby we 
may serve God acceptably, with reverence and godly fear.' 
" Receiving a kingdom which can not be moved," that king- 
dom is as immovable as the rock upon which it is founded. 
It is placed upon the rock Jesus Christ, and the storms have 
beat upon it ; the rains of persecution have descended, and 
the floods of opposition have beat against it, and it fell not — 
it was founded upon a rock. 

Again, my eighth proof text is 1st Cor. xi. 26 : " For as often 
as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's 
death till he come." It is understood that the Lord's Supper 
is an institution in the kingdom of Christ, observed by the 
church of Christ, and I understand the apostle here to predict 
that this eating and drinking in the kingdom of God would 
be done until he come. From that time until now it has 
been observed, and will be till he comes. There is none 
except the church has a right or can possibly observe the 
Lord's Supper. It is done in and by the church in fellowship. 
If a man with these proof texts will deny the perpetuity of 
the kingdom of God, I will say in the language of Abraham, 
that "he would not be persuaded though one should rise from 
the dead." How can a man stand up and contradict Almighty 
God and the truth of His word? There are passages then 
that will not admit of being explained away. Let us, there- 
fore, be careful. 

I will call your attention to some authorities from the gen- 
tleman's church. First, is Tolbert Fanning. In a little work 
called "Searching the Scriptures," page 95, he says : "We 
rejoice also to know that for more than 1800 years, this king- 
dom has stood as a city on a hill, with doors open to all who 



32 Elder (fray's First (Reply. 

would enter the fold of Christ." Thus affirming the doctrine 
of the Bible, that the kingdom for 1800 years has stood. 
Then we have the testimony of Mr. Errett, in a little work 
called "Elements of the Gospel," page 40 : "This brings us to 
the day of Pentecost, and its most significant developments as 
narrated in the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. 
Here we reach our point of rest. Here is the grand culmina- 
tion of the scheme of salvation. Here is the setting up of the 
kingdom. Here is seen the little stone cut out of the moun- 
tain which Nebuchadnezzar saw, and which is yet to become a 
great mountain, and fill the whole earth." 

I have thus given you what a prominent writer of the gen- 
tleman's church declares, concerning that stone, or kingdom, 
that was established, he thinks, upon the day of Pentecost. 
I do not indorse that part of his statement. He says that 
stone is yet to become a great mountain, and fill the whole 
world. 

Again, I have the testimony of Mr. Benjamin Franklin, in 
"Living Pulpit," a standard work of the denomination, contain- 
ing 28 sermons, I believe, of leading men. Mr. Franklin 
says, p. 343, that "A community not founded at the right 
time, is not the kingdom of Christ ;" p. 350, "Popery was 
inaugurated too late, by at least three centuries, to be the 
true and genuine church. If popery was born too late, or is 
too young to be the true church, what shall be said of those 
communities born in the last three centuries ? " 

Again, Mr. Tolbert Fanning ("Living Pulpit," page 520), 
says : "The church was built upon the rock laid in Zion; that 
she has withstood the rough waves of eighteen centuries ; and 
that she will, finally, triumph gloriously over all the prin- 
cipalities and powers of earth." 

Again, John A. Brooks, in the debate with Mr. Fitch, 
held in Winchester, Ky., affirmed in debate proposition fifth, 
that, "the church, known at this day as the Disciples, or 



Elder (Ray's First (Reply. 33 

Christian Church, is the church which was established on the 
day of Pentecost." 

And so a large majority of authorities, drawn from his own 
church, sustain the Bible position, which is, that the kingdom 
of the Lord Jesus Christ has stood until now, and will stand 
until the Son of God shall come a second time. 

I call your attention to one more authority, that is from 
that eminent man, Alexander Campbell, who was the father 
and founder of the gentleman's church. He says, in reply to 
a conscientious sister (Millenial Harbinger," new series, vol. 
1, page 411, 12) : "If there be no Christians in the Protestant 
sects, there are certainly none among the Romanists, none 
among the Jews, Turks, Pagans, and, therefore, no Christians 
in the world, except ourselves, or such of us as keep, or strive 
to keep, all the commandments of Jesus ; therefore, for many 
centuries there has been no Church of Christ, no Christians in 
the world, and the promises concerning the everlasting king- 
dom of the Messiah have failed, and the gates of hell have pre- 
vailed against his church. This can not be, and, therefore, 
there are Christians among the sects." Alexander Campbell 
affirms that the gentleman's position can not be true — impos- 
sible ; and, I would state, dear friends, if all history was a 
blank, if from the time the canon of Revelation was closed, 
from that time till now was one vast chasm of darkness, and 
not one line to light up the dreary ages of the past, with the 
prophetic word in hand, I would span the chasm and say, 
the gates of hell have not prevailed against the church. It has 
weathered the storms of eighteen centuries, and will stand at 
last, when Jesus comes. 

I proceed now to call your attention more particularly to 
the arguments presented. I admit that "things equal to the 
same thing are equal to each other." The gentleman must not 
simply prove that one thing is like, or equal to another. He 
has undertaken to prove identity. There may be two things 



34 Elder (Ray's First (Reply. 

equal to one another, but they may not be identically the 
same. He has not simply to prove that his church resembles 
the original church. His proposition affirms that it is "the 
church, or kingdom, of Christ." He is very tender upon the 
question of succession, and refers to the Baptist author and 
historian, Mr. Bennedict, on page 51, in regard to succession. 
I will state that Mr. Bennedict does not deny the existence of 
succession, and, just where the gentleman quit reading, I will 
read: "But the more I study the subject, the stronger are my 
convictions that if all the facts could be disclosed, a very good 
succession could be made out." He believed that a succession 
existed, yet this was not his object in writing. He was not 
attempting to establish it. He did not think it absolutely 
necessary for him to establish succession, in order to estab- 
lish the claims of the Baptist Church ; and upon that I agree 
with him. But I affirm that it is essential that the succession 
exist, or there is no church of Christ on earth. Whether I 
establish it or not, that succession must exist. And a church 
without that succession, a church established by art of man's 
device in modern times, can not be the original one set up, 
even if it were set up on the day of Pentecost. 

In regard to the prophesy of Isaiah and Micah about the 
law going forth out of Zion, and the word of the Lord from 
Jerusalem" I will simply call your attention at the present 
time to one of them. It is said that " the law shall go forth 
out of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem ;" but 
when we examine the connection, we find that it is a prophesy 
still unfulfilled, pointing to the future, to the time when the 
kingdom shall be exalted. I refer to Is. ii. 2-4: "And it 
shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the 
Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, 
and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow 
unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye and let us 
go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of 



Elder (Ray's First (Reply. 35 

Jacob ; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in 
his paths : for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the 
word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge 
among the nations, and shall rebuke many people : and they 
shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears 
into pruning-hooks : nation shall not lift up sw r ord against 
nation, neither shall they learn war any more." This shows 
that when this prophesy is fulfilled it will be when there is no 
war, when the mountain of the house of the Lord shall have 
been exalted above the hills, above the mountains. The 
same is true of the statement in Micah. The passages referred 
to in Luke xxiv. 46, 47, 49 : " Tarry ye in the city of Jerusa- 
lem, until ye be endued with power from on high." "And that 
repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his 
name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." 

"Beginning at Jerusalem." He says that this was the 
first, the beginning of the preaching of the remission of sins ; 
when upon examination he will find that it was the beginning 
of the gospel to the representatives of the nations ; as found 
in Mat. x. 5, the commission was confined to Judaea: "into 
any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to 
the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But now that commis- 
sion is enlarged ; it is to go to the nations : and on the day of 
Pentecost there were Jews, devout persons out of every na- 
tion under heaven ; - and it began then to go to the nations, 
but not the first beginning of that word of God's great 
salvation. In proof that this interpretation is correct, I call 
your attention to Acts x. 36, 37 : "The word which God sent 
unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ : 
(he is Lord of all :) That word, I say, ye know, which was 
published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after 
the baptism which John preached." The preaching of the 
Son of God is referred to. There was the beginning of this 
salvation proclaimed. Also, Heb. ii. 3 : "How shall we 



36 Elder (Ray's First (Reply. 

escape, if we neglect so great salvation ; which at first began 
to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them 
that heard him" Not first began to be spoken on the day of 
Pentecost by Peter, or the apostles; but "which at the first began 
to be spoken by the Lord" — by the Son of God. And in Luke 
iv. 16-22 : "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been 
brought up : and, as his custom was, he went into the syna- 
gogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And 
there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. 
And when he had opened the book, he found the place 
where it was written : The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, 
because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor ; 
he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliv- 
erance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, 
to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the ac- 
ceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he 
gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of 
all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 
And he began to say unto them, This day is the scripture 
fulfilled in your ears." That prophesy of Esaias pointing to 
the actual preaching of the gospel. This was in Galilee, after 
the baptism which John preached. He arrived in Nazareth, 
where he was brought up ; and here he opened the gospel, and 
preached salvation to the captives and liberty to those that 
were bound. In my judgment, there can be no doubt about 
this interpretation. 

In regard to the least in the kingdom of God being greater 
than John, this has nothing to do with the proposition, it 
seems to me. Whether John was in the kingdom or not, does 
not enter into the discussion. The gentleman knows that that 
mikroteros is in the comparative degree, that it is less ; he that 
is less in the kingdom ; and it is so translated by many. 
I want to call your attention to the testimony of the cele- 
brated commentator Lange, in this connection. "He that is 



Elder (Ray's First (Reply. 37 

less" — he puts least in brackets — "Meyer: Not he that is 
least, as the comparative is never used for the superlative. 
See Winer's Grammar (p. 218). De Wette entertains a differ- 
ent opinion, and translates it least. But the passage is so im- 
portant, that unless forced by the use of the language, we are 
not warranted in deviating from the literal expression, though 
we do not deny that the rendering he that is least gives good 
sense." 

And then we have the testimony of the editor, Philip Schaff, 
upon this subject, "Less, or the lesser, ho mikroteros. So Lange, 
Van Ess, the Latin vulgate (minor), and all the older English 
versions, Wiclif's, Tyndale, Crammer, Geneva (less), the 
Eemish (the lesser)." The older translations render it less or 
lesser, while the later translations give it least. But, whether 
it has this, that, or the other meaning, as I have remarked, 
it does not affect the discussion, even as to the time of the 
setting up of the kingdom. 

Again: "Thy kingdom come." He tells us that this has 
reference to the future, as found in Mat. vi. 10 — that model 
prayer. Upon examination he will find that it is eltheto from 
erchomai in the aorist tense. Bagster, in Lexicon of the New 
Testament, says : "To come, to go, to pass." He gives this 
as the meaning. Liddell and Scott's Lexicon says : "to come, 
to go away, especially in the imperative." Eobinson says : "to 
go, to come," and makes "go" the first, or primary meaning of 
the word. It shows, then, the sense is prevail, or increase. 
He has no right, it seems to me, professing to take the New 
Testament as his guide, to set aside that beautiful model prayer 
given by the Son of God himself. 

Some standing here that shall not taste death until they 
see the kingdom of God come. Dr. Lucas infers from this 
that the kingdom had not come. I will call his attention to 
Mat. x. 23 : " But when they persecute you in this city, 
flee ye into another : for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not 



38 Elder (Ray's First (Reply. 

have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be 
come." Though present, he represents himself as coming in the 
future, appearing in a different character. And so I under- 
stand of the kingdom. While present as the grain of mustard 
seed that was sown in the field, hidden from the view of man- 
kind, yet it was to appear at length, and come forth to the 
light, and to be exhibited before the world. This is confirmed 
again in Mark ix. 1 : "And he said unto them, Verily I say 
unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which 
shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of 
God come with power. And after six days Jesus taketh with 
him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an 
high mountain apart by themselves : and he was transfigured 
before them," showing that this coming was the coming with a 
power which had not appeared before that time. Again, Luke 
xii. 32 : "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good 
pleasure to give you the kingdom.'' The gentleman affirmed 
that they did not possess the kingdom. I grant this, but the 
Saviour himself was present, possessing that kingdom, execut- 
ing its laws ; but when he departed from the world he leaves 
with them the kingdom. 

The gentleman alluded to that passage (Luke xxii. 29) 
where it is said : "I appoint unto you a kingdom." 

But, the gentleman's definition, to promise, of that word 
diatithemai, is not found in Robinson, or Bagster; and, as the 
primary meaning, not even in Liddell and Scott, if I remem- 
ber correctly ; but it is used in the sense of will or covenant, as 
when an individual is about to depart, or to die, he wills his 
property to his heirs ; and those heirs of the kingdom received 
it by will, as the Saviour was about to depart. A will is of 
no force while the testator liveth, but the testator is the ex- 
ecutor of his own will, while he lives, and when he comes to 
die, he makes his will, and Jesus left the disciples his au- 
thority as the executors of his will ; as a kingdom he left i4 
with them to execute its laws. 



Elder (Ray's First (Reply 39 

But in regard to the expression, Acts i. 6 : "Wilt thou at 
this time restore again the kingdom to Israel ?" the disciples 
were not asking in regard to the kingdom of Christ, but in 
regard to the kingdom or government that had been usurped 
by the Roman power ; they had political aspirations for their 
own native coifntry. Prior to this time, at the bar of Pilate, 
Jesus had said : " My kingdom is not of this world : if my 
kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, 
that I should not be delivered to the Jews." John xviii. 36. 

In regard to receiving the kingdom and returning, that he 
went, as the parable of the nobleman says, to receive a king- 
dom and return. He has not yet returned. There are only 
two comings of Jesus Christ mentioned in God's Word. The 
first was when he was born of the virgin and cradled in the 
manger, and the second is when he shall come the second time, 
with power and great glory with all the holy angels ; and in 
this returning is the time when the kingdom is to be exalted 
above the mountains and above the hills. If his argument 
is correct, then the kingdom is not set up yet, because he has 
not returned. 

In regard to Jesus not being a suitable foundation until after 
he suffered upon the cross, I say, dear friends, that the argu- 
ment savors of Unitarianism. That prior to that time he was 
not a suitable foundation ! I learn from the precious word 
that he was as a lamb slain from the foundation of the world ; 
I learn that ancient Israel drank of that spiritual rock, and 
that rock was the Christ ; and as the rock of the salvation 
of ancient Israel, he was a suitable foundation. He was tried, 
too, on earth even before his death. He was tried when he 
was sorely tempted of the devil forty days and forty nights, 
when in the desert. Jesus Christ was a suitable foundation ; 
he was the foundation of the church when he uttered the lan- 
guage to Peter : "Upon this rock will I build my church ; and 
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 



40 Elder (Ray's First (Reply. 

The Dr. attempts to prove that the church was not set up 
because this verb is in the future tense, "will build." I have 
the definition here of Mr. Bagster, " to construct, establish," 
Mat. xvi. 18. Robinson — oilcodomeo — " to build up, to establish, 
to confirm, spoken of the christian church and its members ; 
who are thus compared to a building, a temple $f God, erected 
upon the one only foundation, Jesus Christ, and ever built up 
progressively and unceasingly more and more from the foun- 
dation." Thus showing that we are not compelled to under- 
stand that language as the beginning of the work of building 
up — up-building- — building up progressively, as Mr. Eobinson 



As to his Baptist testimonies, as before intimated, he has 
misconceived the scope of their meaning. They use the term 
church as a local congregation, and affirm that the first local 
organization, or single organization was at Jerusalem. They 
said, so far as he has read, nothing about the time ; they do 
not say the day of Pentecost, but the first local church was at 
Jerusalem ; and so I say. They were not using the term church 
in the sense of kingdom — in the sense of our proposition ; he 
ought to have observed that. So his authorities, so far as 
the Baptists are concerned, fail him. And his testimony of 
Neander upon the subject, I believe, was about the same thing. 

I proceed, then, for the balance of my time, in my negative 
argument. According to the gentleman's own admission, his 
church can not possibly be a church of Christ, or the church 
of Christ, because it neither began with Christ, on the day of 
Pentecost, nor with the inspired apostles. The setting up of 
his church is wrong. Mr. Campbell says [Religious Ency- 
clopedia, p. 462] : "The rise of this society, if we only look 
back to the drawing of the lines of demarkation between it 
and other professors, is of recent origin." It was lately set 
up — in the present century. Again [Christianity Restored, 
p. 6] Mr. Campbell says that "a few individuals, about the 



Elder (Ray's First (Reply. 41 

commencement of the present century, began to reflect upon 
ways and means to restore primitive christianity. ,, 

Again [in the Eeligious Encyc. p. 463], he says that "it was 
not until the year 1823 that a restoration of the original gospel 
and order of things began to be plead, in a periodical edited by 
Alexander Campbell, of Bethany, Virginia, entitled: 'The 
Christian Baptist.'" 

Again : Mr. Campbell says in the same work, same page, 
that it was not until the year 1827, after the Baptists declared 
" non-fellowship with the brethren of the reformation," that 
"they were obliged to form societies out of these communities 
that split upon the ground of adherence to the apostles' doc- 
trine" — on account of adherence to the apostles' doctrine. 
Thus showing that the organization of the gentleman's church 
did not begin until the year 1827 ; and this is a long distance 
from Pentecost. 

Mr. Burnett, in the Living Pulpit, page 47, says: "With- 
in the last forty-five years, a community has grown from zero 
to half a million." He is talking about his own church, that 
within the last forty-five years the gentleman's church has grown 
from nothing — come up from zero in that length of time. Well, 
you know zero, that it is in a very cold latitude. 

I advance, then, in my second negative argument ; tliat is, that 
the gentleman's church was not first established in Jerusalem. Mr. 
Ben. Franklin (Living Pulpit, page 343), says : "A commu- 
nity not founded and established in the right place, is not 
the church of Christ." Page 348, he says: "All agree that 
Jerusalem was the right place." Well, that is what my friend 
says. We are discussing about the church with which he is 
identified ; not the one Paul was identified with, or Peter ; 
but the church organization with which "I, J. R. Lucas, 
stand identified." In the "Living Pulpit" we have the testi- 
mony of the editor, Mr. Moore (page 14), thus : "This was 
the beginning of the great reformatory movement, known as 
the Reformation of the Nineteenth Century. But Thomas 



42 Elder (Ray's First (Reply. 

Campbell and those who operated with him in Western 
Pennsylvania and Western Virginia, were not alone in these 
efforts at a restoration of Primitive Christianity. In Kentucky 
and Tennessee, Stone, Marshall, Thompson, Dunlevy, and 
others, were zealously advocating the same principles. Under 
the influence of these movements, which had no well-defined 
organization, a latent force was excited, which has taken the 
body and form of what is now known as the Christian 
Church, or Disciples of Christ. 

In Western Virginia and Pennsylvania, and in Kentucky 
and Tennessee, men excited a latent force which has taken the 
form of what is known as the Christian Church — the gentleman's 
church. And this writer affirms that this was the "beginning" 
of this reformatory movement ; that it originated here, that it did 
not begin at Pentecost, neither did it begin at Jerusalem. 
The geography of the gentleman's church is wrong by at least 
six thousand miles. The broad Atlantic, and the Mediterranean 
Sea roll their mighty waves between the place of the begin- 
ning of his church and Jerusalem. 

Argument third : His is not the church or kingdom of Jesus 
Christ, because it has not the Son of God as the founder and 
head. We have testimony that I have already read, that Mr. 
Campbell, Mr. Stone, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Dunlevy, and others 
put in motion that latent force out of which has come that 
body known as the Christian Church, or Disciples of Christ. 

I want your attention to some proof texts in regard to the 
headship of the church. The Lord Jesus Christ must be the 
head of the visible church of Christ ; and I propose to prove 
from his own authors, his own authority, that another besides 
Jesus Christ is the founder and head of his church. Memoirs 
of Mr. Campbell, by Prof. Eichardson — an eminent writer — 
vol. 1, p. 401 : "From the moment that Thomas Campbell 
concluded to follow the example of his son in relation to bap- 
tism, he conceded to him in effect the guidance of the whole 
religious movement." [Time Expired.] 



SECOND ADDRESS OF DR. LUCAS. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen : I can not exactly see the force of the gentle- 
man's reply. The difficulty may be with me, however ; but I 
would like for him to make his replies to my arguments a lit- 
tle plainer, at least, for he certainly has wandered around a 
good deal. But I wish to call your attention to some points 
presented by him ; and where he introduces a number of pas- 
sages, I must, in order to advance with my argument, allow 
the examination of one of a class to answer all that belonged 
to that particular class. I take the one with regard to the 
kingdom. 

" The kingdom shall have no end ; the kingdom shall not 
have an end." Well, now, while it is true that the saints of 
God may be overcome, prevailed against, just exactly as the 
prophesies declare, I presume no one entertains the idea that 
that will be the end of the kingdom of God, as it is represented 
by the two witnesses also that were killed and found lying dead 
in the street, unburied ; but life and power returned to them, 
and the ultimate end will be the triumph of the kingdom of 
God ; and yet it may be so overpowered as that the prophet 
and John may be justifiable in saying that they are overcome, 
that they are prevailed against. But the gentleman has very 
nearly — in my judgment, at least, and I think I can show to 
you that it is correct — conceded my main argument drawn 
from the prophesies. And now he calls your attention to 1st 
Tim. iii. 15, to show you that the term " house of God" 
means the church — the house of God referred to in the 



44 (Dr. Lucas' Second Address. 

prophesy under the subject of the mountain of the Lord's 
house. And, now, here Paul refers in Timothy to the same 
thing by the word " house." While he says that these proph- 
esies have never been fulfilled — that they are yet to be ful- 
filled — and while Paul differs with the gentleman, yet Paul 
and the gentleman agree that they refer to the house men- 
tioned in the prophesies. They agree upon that subject, that 
Paul refers to the mountain of the Lord's house that we 
quoted in the prophesy ; and I reckon the house of the Lord 
was established then, because he is telling Timothy how to 
behave himself in the house of God that already exists, that 
was then established ; and he will not deny that it was estab- 
lished then, for, very evidently, if it was established in the 
days of John, it was then established. But now he comes up 
and tells you that all these prophesies are yet to be fulfilled. 
Certainly, there is a little matter here that the gentleman 
must fix up. 

But then he goes to Mat. xvi. 18, and he gives us a long 
discourse upon the subject of succession. As I stated, I 
found no argument upon the succession at all. I found no 
argument upon it. In the language of Benedict, I do not 
regard it as important that the succession shall be established. 
There is no importance to be attached to this idea whatever ; 
but it is the doctrines, principles and practices that consti- 
tute the matters of importance, as we affirm, and as Benedict 
affirms. And if we establish identity here, if those things 
constituted the church of Christ when it was established and 
exist now, it can not be anything else than the church of 
Jesus Christ now. 

But he gave you a case with regard to the passage, " Upon 
this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it." Well, now, did not I say to you that, 
grammatically, the pronoun "it" might have for its antecedent 
either church or rock. Has he denied it? He has not, and 



(Dr. Lucas 7 Second ^Address. 45 

he will not, because lie knows we are correct upon that sub- 
ject. But we have to refer to other passages, in order to see 
which is to be regarded here as the antecedent of the pronoun ; 
and the passages, to which we have referred, in my judg- 
ment, clearly establish that the antecedent of the pronoun 
here is rock, and not church. 

But " things equal to the same thing are equal to one 
another." It is not equality, he says, it is not similarity, but 
identity. Now, then, I propose to show that things equal to 
the same thing are equal to one another ; or, admitting this 
axiom, that certain characteristics are equal to the church of 
Christ, because they, nevertheless, when taken separately, 
do not constitute the church or are unequal to it, but when 
existing together they go to make up the church of Christ, 
are equal to the church of Christ when completely organ- 
ized ; and now, if I show that the church recognized by 
my brethren as the Christian Church possesses the same char- 
acteristics, and those characteristics are equal to the church 
of Christ as first established, we are forced to the conclusion 
that the very same characteristics are equal to the church of 
Christ now ; and when I have done that I have not proven 
similarity, but I have proven identity. "It (the succession) 
must exist, my friend says, though it may not be made out," 
and we want you to recollect this statement of the gentleman, 
for we are satisfied that he will have a great deal of difficulty 
in making out the succession. 

But, then again, "beginning at Jerusalem" — "that repent- 
ance and remission of sins should be preached in his name 
among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem ;" and then, to show 
the beginning, he goes where John began to preach the gospel 
in Galilee. Now, I wish to know if the beginning referred to 
there, when it is said John began to preach the gospel in 
Galilee, if that beginning is the same "beginning" referred to 
in Luke, where it is said "beginning at Jerusalem," and I 



46 , (Dr. Lucas' Second Address. 

want to know if it is the same beginning ; if not, it has 
nothing to do under the broad heavens of God with the 
question. And now I wish to remind you of this fact : 
He said that the gospel was actually preached by John at 
the time of the beginning referred to. . Now, this I deny ; 
and here we have an issue, right here, we have a direct issue. 
I deny it ; I say it could not be actually preached at that 
time, and I say it could not be actually preached until after 
Jesus had died, until after he was buried, until after he rose 
again. It could be preached by promise, but not actually ; 
and I call your attention to the testimony of Paul, as found 
in the 1st Cor. xv. 1, upon this subject, the beginning of the 
chapter, which reads as follows: "Moreover, brethren, I de- 
clare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which 
also ye have received, and wherein ye stand ; By which also 
ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, 
unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you 
first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for 
our sins according to the scriptures ; And that he was buried, 
and that he rose again the third day according to the scrip- 
tures." Now, Paul says that the gospel actually and in fact 
could not be preached before Jesus died, before he was buried, 
and before he rose from the dead. It could be preached in 
promise, and it was preached away back in the days of Abra- 
ham in promise ; and if the gentleman is going back to the 
days of John, in order to find the beginning of his church, 
because the gospel in promise was preached, he had better go 
back to the days of Abraham, where the gospel was first 
preached in promise, and take the beginning of his church 
there. But he will not do that. His brethren do not believe 
that at all. But if he is going after the gospel in promise, he 
had better go clear back to the beginning of the preaching of 
the gospel by promise, and that was in the days of Abraham, 
as Paul asserts in his letter to the Galatians, 



(Dr. Lucas' Second Address. 47 

"But that repentance and remission of sins should be 
preached in his name among all nations, beginning at 
Jerusalem." Now, I submit this proposition, that repentance 
and remission of sins never was preached in the name of Jesus, 
as the Christ, until the first Pentecost, after his ascension. 
Now, let him convict me of error here if he can. I say it 
could not be preached in his name as the Christ until he was 
made the Christ ; he was not constituted and anointed the 
Christ on earth. Peter affirms in the Acts of the Apostles, 
after he ascended to the Father, that " God hath made him 
both Lord and Christ." He made him Lord and Christ in 
heaven, and not on earth. But what Jesus did he did not in 
his own name, he asserts ; but he did in the name of the 
Father ; and, consequently, what was done up to the time of 
his ascension and coronation at the right hand of the Majesty 
on High, was not done in his name as the Christ, was not 
done in the name of the Christ, and the very first time that 
remission of sins was preached and presented in the name of 
Christ and the gospel preached in fact, was on the first Pente- 
cost after the ascension of our Lord. Now, then, hear the 
gentleman and we have an issue again, and let him show that 
we are wrong upon this subject. 

But, "least in the kingdom." In the majority of cases where 
this word occurs (milcros) we find that it is used in the com- 
parative degree ; that is, the original is in the comparative de- 
gree, but not in the translation ;. that it is in a majority of these 
occurrences translated as we have it here with regard to John 
the Baptist, in the superlative, because they can translate it 
in no other way to convey the idea — the idea of the original 
author of the language. The least of seeds, the less of all 
seeds, would not do, but now just admit the Baptist authority 
to which he has referred — he says least or less, and he refers 
to some authors that favor the translation least — that favor 
this translation ; and his own author says "it certainly would 



48 (Dr. Lucas' Second Address. 

make very good sense to translate it least ;" and certainly it 
would make it very good sense to translate it least. But, 
then, if it is not true, it would neither make it good sense nor 
good Bible to translate it least ; and from the fact that it will 
make good sense to translate it least, is proof that it is con- 
sistent with the Bible and with truth. 

The gentleman would like to get away from this render- 
ing — namely, that others born of woman are greater than 
John, and the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than 
he, and as John was the greatest ever born of woman among 
the prophets, according to the declaration, and yet the very 
least in the kingdom is greater than John ; I ask you, now, 
what idea does this language force upon your minds ? If the 
kingdom existed, John was in it, and John knew it ; and so 
did the Saviour know that John was in it. And I ask you, 
now, how, can it be possible that John could be the greatest 
born of woman in the kingdom, and yet he that was least in 
the kingdom was greater than the greatest. Now, there is 
the trouble, and my friend sees it, and, consequently, he will 
labor to make the impression on your minds that it has 
nothing to do with the question at all. "Why, that has 
nothing to do under the broad heavens with the question." 
He can not see it ; no, there is trouble ahead, there is trouble 
ahead. It shows clearly that the kingdom did not then exist. 
Now, suppose you take his word least just as he renders it. 
John is the greatest born of woman, according to the declara- 
tion ; and if the kingdom existed, John was in it. John was in 
it, John knew it, and the Saviour knew it; and now he has the 
Saviour represented as saying that John is the greatest born of 
woman and in the kingdom : yet he that is less than John is 
greater than John ; consequently I can not see that the gentle- 
man is helped any even by his rendering or by his transla- 
tion. He will have to translate it again — try it over. 

But he told us that when he departed he gave to them the 



(Dr. Lucas' Second Address. 49 

kingdom — when he departed. "Well, the gentleman is getting 
on by degrees ; we are getting him nearer and nearer Pente- 
cost every debate w T e have. The first one, he was away off 
from Pentecost, and the second one he got a little nearer, 
and now we have him still a little nearer yet. Now he 
says, that he gave them the kingdom — that Jesus possessed the 
kingdom, and gave the kingdom to his apostles when he left. 
When did he leave? Why, after his resurrection ; and he 
gave them the kingdom of God when he left. We have got 
him this side of the death of Christ when he says he gave the 
apostles the kingdom. Then this certainly was not in the 
days of John, because John was dead before the Saviour was 
crucified. I wish you to recollect this. 

"And he went to receive the kingdom." "Now," said he, 
"when he comes again is, when that will be, at the end of 
time." The point, let me say to you, is not when he is com- 
ing ; we are not discussing that ; that is not it. We are not 
discussing whether he is coming or whether he will come in 
two thousand years or fifty thousand years. That is not the 
question ; not the question when he will come, but the ques- 
tion is, when did he go to receive his kingdom ? That is the 
question ; he did not have his kingdom until he went to re- 
ceive it, according to the parable, and now the question is 
when did he go ? I say, he went when he ascended to the 
Father, after his death and resurrection ; when he ascended to 
the Father is when he went to receive the kingdom, and at 
which time he was coronated at the right hand of the Majesty 
on High, and made prince and saviour to grant repentance and 
the remission of sins. That is when he went to receive his 
kingdom, and he did not have it before he did go to receive it. 
And then, again, I wish you to notice the manner in which 
the gentleman made his argument. There is no argument 
about when he will come ; that is not in the argument at all, 
it is not in the question. It is when he went ; and did he go 



50 Or. Lucas' Second Address. 

before he was crucified or not? Now, in the first chapter of 
the Acts of the Apostles we have it clearly presented when he 
went to receive his kingdom, as represented by; the nobleman 
in the parable ; after his death, burial and resurrection, he 
ascended to his Father and went to receive his kingdom. 

But, again, he refers to Mr. Moore, and to Mr. Campbell, 
and all those men that he has quoted, in order to show the 
beginning of what ? Well, the beginning of the church em- 
braced in my proposition. And every time he reads it is the 
reformation or beginning of the reformation of the 19th cen- 
tury. And what was the design and end contemplated in that 
reformation? Why, to get back to apostolic Christianity. 
To get right back where we are talking now, and we stand now 
precisely where the original church stood, and reaching this 
point is called a reformation ; and Mr. Campbell, and others 
whom he reads, stand as the head or front of this reform, but 
not the head of any church. No one ever supposed that 
Alexander Campbell was the head of any church at all. He 
never speaks so himself; but he stood front and foremost in 
this reform movement, in calling people back to apostolic Chris- 
tianity, to the Christianity established by the apostles and prim- 
itive disciples of Jesus Christ, their Lord. 

But in regard to the kingdom : " I appoint unto you the king- 
dom," we said that diatithemai should be rendered promise ; I 
promise to you a kingdom "as my Father has promised me." 
And he went to receive the kingdom that his Father promised 
him. And then he bestows the kingdom upon his disciples ac- 
cording to promise. Well, we said it meant promise. Now, 
we will quote from Mr. Greenfield; and what does he say with 
regard to this matter? He says, "to promise, to confirm by 
promise." Now, where is the proof that that word means that ? 
Why, he says, Luke xxii. 23 — the very passage now under ex- 
amination — he refers to this very passage to sustain that defin- 
ition of the word. "To promise or to confirm by promise." And 



(Dr. Lucas' Second ^Address. 51 

the gentleman said that Lidclell and Scott did not give this as 
the primary meaning of the word. Now, I submit this proposi- 
tion : I have Liddell and Scott in my room where I am stop- 
ping, and I did not suppose this question would really be raised 
to-night, but, then, I state this: that we have had the subject 
before former audiences, and I will have these authorities here 
to-morrow, and I challenge him now to contradict my state- 
ment, that when Liddell and Scott come to define the New 
Testament use of this word, the very first definition they give 
is promise, the very first when he comes to define the New Tes- 
tament use of it. Now, let him deny this statement, and I 
pledge myself to prove it by introducing the work and reading 
from it — the very first definition is promise, when Liddell 
comes to give the New Testament use of the word. 

But I have about run through with the points presented by 
the gentleman in his speech, except one, and that is this ques- 
tion of sucession. The gentleman seems to hang on to this ques- 
tion of succession with a great deal of tenacity. Well, I wish 
to make this statement, which I have made in our former dis- 
cussion, that I have no doubt in my own mind but that God 
has always had a people in Babylon. He says so, and I be- 
lieve it. But, then, those people in Babylon did not constitute 
the visible church, or kingdom of Christ. Did not. If the 
gentleman says it did, let him prove it, and then we .will yield 
the question. 

Now, I wish to call your attention to Bennedict and see what 
he says. He said he would begin to read where I had stopped. 
I read just what I wished to read, in order to show you my 
idea on the question, that the church did not depend upon 
establishing a succession, but upon doctrine, upon faith, upon 
their practice, including baptism, or these all together. Now, 
I will read from Benedict. He says : "We place no kind of re- 
liance on this sort of testimony to establish the soundness of 
our faith, or the validity of our administration, but the more 



52 (Dr. Lucas' Second .Address. 

I study the subject the stronger are my convictions that if all 
the facts — if all the facts were disclosed, a very good succession 
might be made out, or could be made out. 5 ' 

Now, that is his opinion on the subject. Well, if I had 
enough money I could buy out your rolling mill, or your town, 
or your country ; but, then, that little word " if" is in the way. 
I have not got it, and I will have to do without it, I reckon. 
I have not got the money ; the little word " if" is in the way. 
If I could get facts enough, why, then I could make it out ; 
but, then, the trouble is the little " if" is there ; he has not got 
the facts, and can not make it out. That is just what Bene, 
diet says. And I will read a little more (pages 34 and 35 
Benedict's Church History), and he quotes from Robinson, 
one of the most prominent of the Baptist authorities who has 
ever lived, I presume the gentleman will admit this, and Bene- 
dict indorses the statement as quoted from Robinson. Now, 
what does he say with regard to the succession ? Beginning 
p. 34, he says : "The doctrine of uninterrupted succession was 
the cause of these different claims" (referring to certain claims 
which he had noticed), but all attempts to prove such succes- 
sion have proved ineffectual." He says : "Protestants, by the 
most substantial arguments, have blasted the doctrine of papal 
succession. And yet these very Protestants have undertaken 
to make proof of an unbroken series of persons of their own 
sentiments, following one another in due order from the 
apostles to themselves. The church of the papal succession 
has given the history and the names of real and imaginary 
men, of Christians and atheists, blasphemers and saints. The 
Lutheran succession runs in the papal channel until the refor- 
mation, and then, in a small stream, changes its course. 
The Calvinistic succession, which includes Presbyterians and 
all sects which originated from Geneva, is a zigzag, and it 
is made up of men of all principles and all communities ; 
and it is very surprising that it should be made up of Popes, 



(Dr. Lucas' Second Address. 53 

Arians, and Anabaptists (one of the links in my friends chain 
here), exactly such men as Calvin in his zeal committed to 
the flames for heresy. The doctrine — now mark you — the 
doctrine of uninterrupted succession is necessary only to such 
churches as regulate their faith and practices by tradition ; 
and for their use it was first invented. An uninterrupted 
succession is necessary for none but those who regulate their 
faith and practices by tradition. Those who regulate their 
faith and practices by the Word of God do not need it ; it 
is not necessary." 

Then we have Robinson and Bennedict, both testifying upon 
this question, and we could quote the Religious Encyclopedia, 
a Baptist work, which we will introduce to-morrow, where the 
writer takes stronger ground, if possible, than what we have 
read, and states that for centuries it is utterly impossible to 
make out a succession ; that there is no difficulty in tracing the 
history of the anti-Christ, but the history of the church for a 
long time is in the dark, unknown — there is no history. But, 
then, I find an argument — [Time Expired.] 



SECOND REPLY OF ELDER RAY. 



Mr. President, Brethren Moderators, and Eespected 
Congregation : My worthy friend seems a little excited over 
the subject. I refer to his first remark in regard to Luke i. 
33, that the kingdom shall have no end; and yet he says the 
kingdom was overcome I God's Word does not so state anywhere. 
Individual saints were overcome, but I call upon him to give to 
this people the chapter and verse that affirms that God's king- 
dom was overcome, or prevailed against. I venture the asser- 
tion that he will never find the passage. It is not there ; and 
if he were to get such a proof : taxt he would get a contradic- 
tion in God's Word, which he must not attempt to do. When 
God avers that the child of God has eternal life, and. shall never 
perish, he does not mean that eternal life will have an end, 
that he will become a child of satan and then become a child 
of eternal life after centuries have elapsed in the future. I 
take the Word of God to mean what it says, that the kingdom 
of God shall have no end. 

But " I had almost admitted his position," he says, because 
I had admitted that the house of God was his church, as quot- 
ed in Timothy ; and yet I was contending that the prophecies 
of Isaiah and Micah were not yet fulfilled. I still say those 
prophecies remain unfulfilled ; and yet the kingdom or house 
of God has been established. He misapprehended the scope 
of my argument. These prophecies point to the triumph of 
the church above the nations of the earth, and all the king- 
doms or nations shall flow unto it. Now, I will read again from 
Micah iv. 1-3 : "But in the last days it shall come to pass, 



Elder (Ray's Second (Reply. 



that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be establish- 
ed in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above 
the hills ; and people shall flow unto it." This certainly has 
not taken place to the present time. And many nations shall 
come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the 
Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob ; and he will teach 
us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths : for the law shall 
go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." 
Have the many nations come up to the mountain of the house 
of the Lord as yet? Has that kingdom or house of the Lord 
been exalted above the governments of the world, and above 
the kingdoms? No. "And he shall judge among many peo- 
ple, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat 
their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning 
hooks : nations shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither 
shall they learn war any more." 

The sword shall be changed for the plowshare, and the spear 
to the pruning hook ; and then will the kingdom be exalted ; 
not set up in its commencement, but the same kingdom that 
has now an existence, set up by the Son of God during his 
personal ministry, will be exalted to the dominion of the 
world. This is the position I take. I hope that my worthy 
friend will understand it. But Mat. xvi. 18 : "the gates of 
hell shall not prevail against it." He brings in the grammar, 
and says that it may mean this or may mean that. The context 
must certainly determine what it must be — to w^hat antecedent 
it refers ; and it does seem to me that it is out of all propriety 
for one to build a house upon a solid rock, and then affirm that 
the storms of years shall not prevail against the rock down there 
under the ground. I respect, dear friends, the intelligence of 
this people. 

He quoted me as affirming about John's preaching the gos- 
pel. Well, John did preach it. But I did not refer to it in 
my speech. . I referred to preaching of the gospel by the 



56 Elder Ray's Second (Reply. 

Son of God himself; "That it began from Galilee, after the 
baptism, which John preached, 1 ' was the language of the text. 
I referred to Heb. ii. 3, to the fact that this "great salvation 
first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto 
us by them that heard him." But, if he wishes it, I can give 
him a passage of Scripture showing that even John preached 
the gospel ; and I wish your attention especially to the remark 
of my friend, that the beginning of the prophetic preaching 
was that in the days of Abraham. There was where it was to 
begin. And, if I look behind the day of Pentecost, I must go 
to Abraham, I have no other beginning ! Notice Mark i. 
1, 2 : "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of 
God ; As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my mes- 
senger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before 
thee." Here, then, is not the beginning of the gospel w 7 hich 
was preached by the prophets — in prophesy. According to his 
own testimony, this is not the beginning of the prophetic preach- 
ing; but the "beginning" of that gospel which is now "ful- 
filled in your ears." It was not fully preached by John in every 
respect as it was by Christ, because John's preaching was only 
the introduction of that gospel. It was the beginning of the 
gospel. Why did the Dr. fail to notice the passage in Luke 
iv: where the Saviour read the prophetic gospel, where he 
was to preach the acceptable year of the Lord ; when he sat 
down and all eyes were fastened on him, he says : ' ' This day" — 
that was before the day of Pentecost — "is this Scripture fulfilled 
in your ears." The prophetic preaching is now fulfilled, and it 
takes its place at this appointed time. 

My friend has given an interpretation which contradicts the 
Saviour. He says the gospel was first preached on the day of 
Pentecost. He certainly has mistaken the question. I want 
your attention to a passage or two more on this subject, Mark 
i. 14: "Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the 
kingdom of God, and saying, the time is fulfilled, and the 



Elder (Ray's Second (Reply. 57 

kingdom of God is at hand ! repent ye, and believe the gos- 
pel." Jesus came preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God. 
My friend says there was no gospel preached till Pentecost. 
Just a question of difference between him and Jesus — a differ- 
ence of opinion! But, he says "at hand." He knows that 
the original word is in the perfect tense — anggiken — has ap- 
proached, has come. 

But, then again it is said, Luke xx. 1 : "Jesus taught the 
people in the temple, and preached the gospel." This was be- 
fore the day of Pentecost. He taught the people in the temple, 
and preached the gospel. The gentleman must not contradict 
the testimony of Jesus on these points. 

In regard to the kingdom existing or being set up before the 
day of Pentecost, I wish to call your attention to Luke xvi. 16 : 
"The law and the prophets were until John : since that time 
the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into 
it." I ask this congregation, how can men press into the Icing- 
dom of God before that kingdom is set up, before its existence ? 
Notice it : " The law and the prophets were until John: since that 
time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into 
it." My fiiend would have you believe that the law and the 
prophets were until Pentecost, and that the kingdom of God 
was established on the day of Pentecost ! This is another dif- 
ference between him and his Master — his doctrine, I mean, 
His doctrine forces him to contradict the Son of the living 
God, 

Mat. xi. 12: "From the days of John the Baptist until 
now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the vio- 
lent take it by force." How could the kingdom suffer violence 
when there was no kingdom u from the days of John the Bap- 
tist until now V The Saviour called the twelve disciples be- 
fore John was executed, and the beginning of the organization 
commenced with the twelve disciples. 

In regard to the foundation, the prophets and apostles were 



58 Elder (Ray's Second (Reply. 

before the day of Pentecost. In Galilee, before the day of 
Pentecost, the organization began. And on the day of Pen- 
tecost they were added unto them the one hundred and twen- 
ty, composing the local organization. And it is evident they 
had transacted church business before the day of Pentecost, 
which was recognized by heaven. They had elected Mathias 
in the place of Judas who had vacated his office, and that was 
before the day of Pentecost, But if the Pentecostal church 
was only set up that day, then we have one hundred and 
twenty without Christian baptism, According to the gentle- 
man's own doctrine, being without Christian baptism they were 
not pardoned, and then they were there without salvation ! 
Another difficulty that the gentleman is in up to his ears. 
[Laughter,] 

And then, how can the Dr. apply this in Mat, xxiii,, where 
the Saviour, speaking to the Pharisees, says : "Ye shut up the 
kingdom of heaven against men." They would not go in 
themselves, neither would they siuTer those who were entering 
to go in. How could they shut something up that did not ex- 
ist ? And how could they keep people out of something that 
had no existence ? I reckon he had better just concede that 
point, and conclude that Jesus and the apostles are right. 
Talk about getting me nearer to his position! I do not want 
to vary from the Word of the living God. 

Well, in regard to the least in the kingdom of heaven. Again, 
for the life of me I can not see what connection that has with 
the proposition. Whether John was in or out, it matters not, 
because the Saviour called the twelve after John was in prison, 
and the calling of the twelve was the commencement of the 
organization. There is no doubt about that; and, consequent- 
ly, while my friend might talk about the least in the kingdom, 
as a matter of criticism, it has no sort of bearing upon the 
setting up of the kingdom — none whatever. But I find in 
Mark, I believe the iv. 31, that the word mikroteros is ren- 



Elder (Ray's Second (Reply. 59 

dered less instead of least of all seeds. " It is like a grain of 
mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than 
all the seeds in the earth." But the Dr. said that rendering 
would not do ; but we pass. 

But, Jesus, on the day of Pentecost, was made a prince and 
Saviour ! Well, brethren, it does seem to me that he" is driv- 
ing into Arianism, or some other ism that denies the divinity 
of Jesus. He says that on the day of Pentecost Jesus was 
made Christ Was he not Christ before that ? Was he not a 
Saviour before this ? He was declared publicly to be a Saviour, 
and in that sense made known as a Saviour. Certainly the 
gentleman ought to understand this passage, where it says, 
' ' made a prince and Saviour." And then, again, where it is 
said he was exalted to be a prince and Saviour, " to be " is an 
interpolation — exalted a prime and Saviour. And when he 
rode lowly into Jerusalem upon a colt, it was said of him : 
"Behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt"; 
showing that when he made that triumphal entrance in- 
to Jerusalem he was then the King of Zion. And he had 
regal authority when he said "All power in heaven and 
in earth is given unto me ; go ye, therefore, and teach all 
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost." If Jesus held all power in heav- 
en above, and all power in the earth beneath, did not he have 
regal authority ? Talk about his being coronated on the day 
of Pentecost ! You never learned that from God's Word. 
You w r ill find that in Alexander Campbell's writings, if you 
examine them carefully ; I want you to quit talking that kind 
of thing. I tell you you can not find it in the Bible. 

But those great names from whom I have read quotations, 
they were not the head of the church, his own church, oh, no ! 
but simply kind of heads — the head of the reformation, or lead- 
ers in it. I want to call your attention to a few other passages 
in regard to the rise and progress of the gentleman's church. 



60 Elder (Ray's Second (Reply. 

They are declared to be the head of the religious movement, 
out of which has come the church called by themselves " The 
Christian Church," He will not affirm that the church 
with which he stands identified originated at Jerusalem. It 
must have originated then, recently, because it is so affirmed 
in the passages I have quoted. In the introduction to the 
"Living Pulpit" we have the following, on p. 28 : "We have 
now noticed two periods in the history of the Disciples — 
namely, the Period of Formation, and the Period of Organiza- 
tion and Development" — the period of its formation, and then of 
its organization and development I But was his formation here 
in the present century ? Yes ; according to the testimony of 
this writer, as he gives it on p, 31 : "The Disciples are just 
now passing through a transition state, and it will be interest- 
ing in after years, to look over the great speeches of some of 
the representative men of this period." They are passing 
through the transition — not fully organized — being formed. 

The statement from Mr. Benedict, that it was not neces- 
sary to establish the succession in order to defend our claims, I 
indorse his statement that it is not necessary. But, Benedict 
did not deny the existence of that succession — that perpetuity. 
That succession of the church must exist, or it is not the 
original church of Christ. And his statement from Mr. Rob- 
inson, does not help the matter. Robinson was talking about 
the papal succession, and those who were trying to trace suc- 
cession through the Papists, according to the quotation he 
read from Mr. Benedict. So it does not aid him one whit 
in this matter. 

I will call your attention, now, to some further proofs in re- 
gard to the headship of the gentleman's church. I had just 
read, when my time expired, that Mr. Campbell was recog- 
nized as the guide of the religious movement, out of which 
their church has emanated. (Memoirs by Mr. Richardson, 
vol. 1, p. 510 :) "While Mr. Campbell was fearless, and self- 



Elder (Ray's Second (Reply. 61 

reliant and firm, Mr. Scott was naturally timid, diffident and 
yielding ; and while the former was calm, steady and pru- 
dent, the latter was excitable, variable and precipitate. The 
one like the north star, was ever in position, unaffected by 
terrestrial influences ; the other, like the magnetic needle, was 
often disturbed and trembling on its center, yet ever return- 
ing, or seeking to return to its true direction. ,, This is the 
testimony of this eminent historian, Prof. Richardson, the au- 
thor of two large volumes. He says, in regard to Alexander 
Campbell, that he considers him the north star of the 
church — of the reformation, unaffected by terrestrial things. 
But his Disciples, though trembling like the needle, point to 
their polar star, Mr. Campbell. 

Brethren, the church of the living God looks to the bright 
Morning Star of our salvation, and that is Jesus Christ. 

But, then (Memoirs, vol. 2, p. 295), "Mr. Campbell found 
himself to be the center of a constantly widening circle of in- 
fluence, and, under divine providence, an acknowledged 
guide, to a large and intelligent community, zealously en- 
gaged in the w T ork of reformation.'' Mr. Campbell w T as the 
acknowledged guide of the reformation of the nineteenth cen- 
tury ; and they claim that their church came out of the refor- 
mation ; so he was their guide in this primary movement and 
organization. 

And, then again (Memoirs, vol. 2, p. 668), Mr. Richardson 
says: "Like a balance wheel, he regulated the entire move- 
ment of the reformation, and, on repeated occasions, preserved 
it from the disasters which were impending from the ambitions, 
or the rashness of its friends." 

Like a great balance wheel of some vast machinery, Mr. 
Campbell w T as the regulator of the whole religious movement 
of the reformation of the nineteenth century ; and the gen- 
tleman belongs to the church that commenced in the nine- 
teenth century. 



62 Elder (Ray's Second (Reply. 

Mr. Campbell, in the year 1847, made a tour to Europe, 
and, on going, lie received a letter of recommendation from 
Henry Clay, the well-known statesman of my native State. 
In that recommendation we have the following language (vol. 
2, p. 548 of the Memoirs): "Dr. Campbell is among the most 
eminent citizens of the United States, distinguished for his 
great learning and ability, for his successful devotion to the 
education of youth, for his piety, and as the head and founder 
of one of the most important and respectable religious commu- 
nities in the United States." 

Head and founder of that church ! But, perhaps you will 
say that Mr, Campbell did not view himself such ; that Mr. 
Campbell did not consider himself entitled to Mr. Clay's high 
recommendation. Do you believe that Mr. Campbell would 
have borne in his pocket a falsehood to recommend himself to 
the people of another country ? No ; Mr. Campbell recog- 
nized himself as the founder and head of that community. 
Then that church does not have Jesus Christ as its founder, 
or as its head. 

In Hitchcock's Analysis there is appended an account of 
the rise of denominations, and, under the head "Disciples of 
Christ, commonly called Campbellites, from Alexander Camp- 
bell, founder of the sect," we find that Alexander Campbell is 
designated the founder of the sect, "who seceded from the ses- 
sion branch of the Presbyterian Church in Western Pennsyl- 
vania, in 1812." [Time Expired.] 



-Second ©pening. 



THIRD ADDRESS OF DR. LUCAS. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen : I appear before you again in the discussion of 
the proposition read in your hearing last evening, and which 
I will again read : "The church to which I, J. K. Lucas, belong, 
recognized by my brethren as the Christian Church, possesses 
all the characteristics which entitle it to be regarded as the 
visible church, or kingdom, of Jesus Christ." This proposition 
I am before you again to affirm, and labor to prove. But be- 
fore I advance with my argument in favor of the proposition 
before you, I wish to make a brief reference to the last speech 
of my friend. Those who were present on the last evening 
are aware of the fact that he indulged very liberally in quota* 
tions from Alexander Campbell and Mr. Lard, and others, 
and to which I do not object at all, if he feels disposed to spend 
his time in that way ; still, I fail to see the relevancy of his 
quotations, and would state, as I have stated before, that Mr. 
Campbell and Mr. Lard, while we esteem them as good men, 
and many things that they teach we cordially indorse, yet they 
teach some things that we as cordially deny ; and, consequent- 
ly, they are not to settle questions such as we have before us 
under discussion to-night. The Word of God must settle all 
these questions, or they never w T ill be settled. 

The gentleman spoke of my being excited ; at this, I confess, 



64 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

I was somewhat amused. No doubt the audience was equally 
amused, or at least surprised, at the gentleman's reference. 
"The child of God has eternal life, and shall not perish." 
Well, this is true, so we say. But how does this affect the 
question before us ? While this is true, yet it is also true that 
the children of God may be persecuted to that extent that 
their lives may be destroyed, and they taken from the earth 
down to the dark empire of death. They do not perish in the 
sense of the passage, and yet they may be destroyed, so far as 
this world is concerned. They may be prevailed against — 
they may be overcome by the powers of this world. And when 
this is true, it would be very difficult, I presume, for the gen- 
tleman to find his visible church or kingdom in the world. 
However, I want to say in regard to this matter, that so far 
as Mat. xvi. 18, is concerned, the point in the passage upon 
which my argument is made, it makes but very little differ- 
ence so far as the present argument is concerned, whether the 
antecedent of the pronoun is "church" or "rock." But the 
point upon which my argument is based is this : " Upon this 
rock will I build my church.' 1 Will I build my church. And 
we purpose showing from this passage that the church is yet 
future, that it was not at the time this language was spoken, 
established ; and this is the prominent point in the passage, 
upon which our argument is made to rest. And we state that 
this word here is used correctly, that this word may be used in 
the present tense or in the past tense every one will concede at 
once, but in this passage it is used in the future tense, and con- 
sequently it looks to the future for the consummation of that 
to which it refers ; and so with regard to the use of the verb 
throughout its entire connection. " Upon this rock will I 
build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heav- 
en : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound 
in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be 



(Dr. Lucas' Third Address. 65 

loosed in heaven." The future tense of the verb is observed 
throughout the entire connection. 

But I call your attention again to Isaiah and Micah. You 
recollect my friend's remarks upon the subject. And these 
prophets say that in the last days that the mountain of the 
Lord's house shall be established upon the top of the moun- 
tains, and that when this is the case the law shall go forth of 
Zion, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And Joel, 
speaking of the same event, or referring to the same place and 
time when these prophesies are to be completed and fulfilled, 
speaks of the last days as Isaiah and Micah, and Peter, com- 
menting upon this prophesy, says : Tliis is that w T hich was 
spoken by the prophet Joel that in the last days it shall come 
to pass, and so on. 

Mr. Eay — What chapter and verse in Joel, please ? 

Mr. Lucas— Which ? 
• Mr. Kay — What chapter and verse in Joel, please ? 

Mr. Lucas — Well, I am quoting from the second of Acts, 
the comments of Peter upon Joel's prophesy. 

"But the nations shall learn war no more." 

The final object of the kingdom of Jesus Christ is to over- 
come war, and everything of this nature and character. The 
kingdom of Jesus is a spiritual kingdom, and, from its com- 
nlencement to the present time, it has impressed the mind 
with this thought, that in the kingdom of Jesus, the Christ, 
the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, while the kingdoms 
of this world use weapons and instrumentalities in their war- 
fares of a very different nature and character. But, I notice 
my friend's play on the term gospel. Now, every one who 
has ever examined this term knows that the term gospel 
primarily signifies good news, and whatever is regarded as 
good news is gospel, for this is the meaning of the word. But, 
the point I present, and the issue to which I invite my friend 
is this : That the gospel in fact never was preached until the 



66 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

first Pentecost, after the ascension of Jesus Christ ; and, in 
proof of this statement, we call your attention to the language 
of Paul in 1st Cor. xv. 1-3, where he says : "I delivered unto 
you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ 
died for our sins according to the scriptures ; And that he was 
buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the 
scriptures." Now, Paul calls this the gospel that they had re- 
ceived, and by which they were saved, if they retained in 
their minds what he had preached unto them. Then this gos- 
pel, in fact, embracing the death, burial and resurrection of 
Jesus the Christ, never was preached to the people by the 
apostles until the first Pentecost. And so we stated there is 
an issue here to which we invite the gentleman, and we call 
upon him to show where this gospel was ever preached in fact 
before the time that we have stated. And this is the gospel 
that the apostles were commanded to preach as the embassa- 
dors of Jesus the Christ, in the kingdom of Jesus, after hfc 
had gone to receive his kingdom, and had received it. They 
were to tarry in the city of Jerusalem until they were endued 
with power from on high — until the Holy Spirit came that was 
to guide them into all truth, and to bring to their remem- 
brance whatsoever the Lord commanded them. But the king- 
dom of heaven is at hand. My friend stated that because the 
term enggidzo, as found in the third chapter of Matthew, and 
in other passages to which we referred, is in the perfect tense, 
therefore it should be rendered "the kingdom has come." 
Now, we say this is not the rendering of the word — this is 
not the correct rendering, though there is no difference be- 
tween my friend and myself, with regard to the tense in which 
the word is found. It is in the perfect tense, we all agree to 
this, but to be correctly rendered, it should be "the kingdom 
has come near." I want to give you a little authority in re- 
gard to the meaning of the word enggidzo, and I want to read 
you a few lexicons on the subject. I wish to call your atten- 



(Dr. Lucas' Third Address. 67 

tion first to Robinson's Lexicon : Enggidzo, to bring near ; to 
cause to approach ; to draw near ; to approach ; to have 
drawn near; to be at hand." Thus he defines the word 
enggidzo. This is Robinson. Greenfield defines it precisely in 
the same way. Liddell and Scott define it precisely in the 
same way. Donegan defines it precisely in the same way ; 
and if the gentleman has a lexicon that I have not, and if he 
will hand it to me, I will show him that his lexicon defines it 
the same way, for this is the way the word is defined, and not 
as he has defined it at all. And now we want to give you a 
few passages to show you the manner in which this word is 
used in the Scriptures, and we shall invite your attention first 
to Luke xix. 29: "And it came to pass, when he was come 
aigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the 
mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples ;" he sent them 
into the city. Now, this place where the Saviour was, is three 
miles from the city of Jerusalem ; "and when he had come 
nigh" here we have the same word precisely, that we have in 
the third chapter of Matthew, where it is said that John 
preached, saying "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." And 
in every other place, where we quote this form of language 
from the Scriptures, inspired of God. But, now we want to 
call your minds to Romans xiii. 12 : "The night is far spent, 
the day is at hand : let us therefore cast off* the works of dark- 
ness, and let us put on the armour of light." Now, here it is 
stated that " the night was far spent," not that the night 
was gone, not that the night had entirely passed away, but 
"the night was far spent, and the day was at hand." It was 
beginning to approach. It was drawing near. Just precisely 
as it did in the other passages. 

But we call your attention again to Philippians ii. 13, and 
here we have the same word employed: "Because for the 
work of Christ he was nigh unto death, not regarding his life, 
to supply your lack of service toward me." 



68 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

Here, now, is Epaphroditus that "was nigh unto death," 
but he was not dead, and he did not die at that time. But 
here we have the very same word, "he was nigh unto death." 
Here, then, we discover in this passage the use made of the 
word in the divine Scriptures. But, we call your attention 
not only to the use of the word as found here, but also as found 
in one of the letters — 1st Peter iv. 7: "But the end of all 
things is at hand," and yet the end has not yet come. It is 
not yet come. And yet Peter says the end is at hand. It, 
therefore, may mean a short distance of time. It may mean 
a short time, or, from the apostle Peter's standpoint, it may 
mean even hundreds of years ; but I simply give you this in- 
terpretation of the use of the word in these passages, to show 
you that they used it not with the idea that the thing to 
which they referred had already come, and already is in ex- 
istence. 

But he calls our attention to Luke xvi. 16 : " The law and 
the prophets were until John." The parallel passage to this 
is found in Mat. xi. 11-14. The thirteenth verse reads : "For 
all the prophets prophesied until John," and "the law and the 
prophets" in Luke, "were until John." Since then the king- 
dom is preached, the kingdom of God is preached, and all 
men press into it. And he asked the question: "How can it 
be that a man can press into a kingdom that does not already 
exist?" Well, I want to call your attention to the remarks of 
Dr. Barnes, upon this same subject, and which, here, we 
heartily indorse. The first comment upon the passage is found 
in Matthew. He says : "There was a great rush or a crowd 
pressing to hear John ; and again there is allusion had to the 
manner in which cities were taken and besiegers pressed upon 
them with violence and demolished the walls with such earn- 
estness and violence. He said men had pressed around him, 
as soon as he began to preach." This is the comment, or a 
portion of the comment of Dr. Barnes upon these passages, 



(Dr. Lucas' Third ^Address. 69 

and now, in connection with these remarks, as we fully in- 
dorse what we have read here, and adopt the language as our 
own, we want to call your attention to a statement or two 
made by my friend. The gentleman last night stated that the 
apostles were not called until after John was executed — that 
they were not called until after John was executed, and they 
did not receive the kingdom until Jesus went away. Well, 
Jesus went away forty days after his resurrection — went to re- 
ceive his kingdom, forty days after his resurrection. They 
did no*t receive the kingdom until he went away, the disciples, 
or the apostles, that my friend stated constituted the first 
members of the church, or kingdom, were not called until 
after John was executed. Now, then, these things being 
true, pray, tell me, how the kingdom could have been preached 
by John as visibly existing, as existing then, and men visibly 
and literally pressing into it. How could this be ? These two 
positions can not possibly be reconciled with each other. They 
can not possibly both be true. But the question might arise, 
how then did John preach the gospel? "The law and the 
prophets were until John. Since then the kingdom of God 
is preached." How was it preached ? How did John preach 
it? John tells us himself "the kingdom is at hand;" the 
kingdom is preached in this manner. John and the apostles, 
and the seventy, and Jesus, before the death of the Saviour, 
' preached the kingdom. And now, in connection with these 
passages, I wish to submit the following rule. I now state that 
if the gentleman will show that we are wrong in regard to the 
rule we submit, by which these passages and others should be 
interpreted ; if he will show the fallacy of this rule, we pledge 
you that we will surrender the question ; and the rule is this : 
" Things that are future, are very frequently spoken of as being 
present or past, while things present, or past, are never spoken 
of as future." Now, then, if the gentleman will show the 
fallacy of this rule of interpretation, we pledge you that, so 



70 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

far as these passages are concerned, we will surrender the 
point, and must find some other solution of the question pre- 
sented 

But succession again. Well, it is not necessary to spend 
more time upon this subject, for the gentleman has already ad- 
mitted that it is not necessary in order to identify the church 
of God, that a connected chain of succession be made out. 
He says he indorses what Benedict says upon the subject, and 
though he says the succession must exist, yet it is not necessary 
that it be made out, or that we be able to make it out, and 
consequently we leave this matter for the present with you. 

But Clay's letter to Mr. Campbell, to show that Mr. Camp- 
bell is the head of the church. Now, then, I deny that Camp- 
bell ever asked Mr. Clay for a letter ; I deny that Campbell 
ever showed that letter to anybody ; it was simply an expres- 
sion from Mr. Clay of the partiality and friendship he had 
for Mr. Campbell, he having learned that he w T as about start- 
ing on a tour to Europe, and he having acted as presiding 
Moderator in that debate conducted between Campbell and 
Bice, from his personal friendship ; it was but a friendly ex- 
pression of his own feeling on the subject. And I deny that 
Mr. Campbell ever exhibited it to any one ; and though we 
were to grant and make the case as strong as possible, that 
even Mr. Campbell himself claimed to be the head of the 
church, I will ask the gentleman to show where the Christian 
Church as a church, as a body, ever have recognized any such 
claim on the part of Alexander Campbell, or on the part of 
any mortal man upon the footstool of God ? There is no such 
thing, even if it were claimed, has never been countenanced 
or indorsed for a single moment ; but the thing itself is falla- 
cious, and we, claim, has never been made. 

But now we advance with our argument. The second ar- 
gument that we submitted was, that we were in perfect accord- 
ance with primitive teaching with regard to the foundation. 



(Dr. Lucas' Third Address. 71 

In the twenty-eighth chapter of the prophesy of Isaiah, it is 
there: "The foundation, the precious corner-stone, the tried 
stone/' having reference to Jesus Christ. And as presented in 
Mat. xvi. 18, the same foundation is again referred to by the 
Saviour: "Upon this rock will I build my church, and the 
gates of hell shall not prevail against it;" and 1st Cor. iii. 11 : 
" Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is 
Jesus Christ." And in Eph. ii. 19, 20, we have these words : 
"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and 
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." 
Jesus, then, is the foundation. Thus he was presented primi- 
tively ; and thus we affirm there is no other foundation of the 
church than Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God. He is 
the true foundation. And here, again, we say we are identi- 
cal in teaching and in faith with the primitive church ; and if 
they were right upon this question we must be right, because 
we occupy precisely the same ground. And, third, we remark 
that we have the one only infallible creed, the Word of God, 
that and nothing else — the Word of God to the exclusion of 
all other creeds, to the exclusion of all other confessions of 
faith or of discipline. We take the Word of God and say in the 
language of 2d Tim. iii. 16: "The Scriptures inspired of God 
are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for in- 
struction in righteousness: that the man of God may be 
perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 

The Scriptures then furnish the doctrine, they furnish the 
reproof, they furnish the correction, they furnish the instruc- 
tion in righteousness, so that the man of God may be perfect 
and thoroughly furnished unto all good works. We say, then, 
that here we are in accordance with the practice of the primi- 
tive church. They recognize no other authority than that of 
the Word of God, the teaching of inspiration to control and 
govern their faith, and to regulate and direct their practices 
in life. 



72 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

But we remark, fourth, that we recognize the one scriptural 
head, even Jesus the Christ — he is the head of all things to 
the church. So Paul affirms in his letter to the Galatians 
i. 18. He is the one head of the body, the church ; we acknowl- 
edge no other head ; we say that Jesus is the head, and he 
only is the head of the one body, and the one church estab- 
lished by him under his authority, and established and pre- 
sented to the world. [Time Expired.] 



-Second Opening. 



ELDER RAY'S THIRD REPLY. 



Mr. President and Brethren Moderators : I enter at 
once, after a few questions, upon the reply. First, I ask Dr. 
Lucas, as he denies the perpetuity of the church, to tell me 
from history, sacred or profane, when did the church, or king- 
dom, of Jesus Christ become extinct ? Second, when did it 
have a second beginning ? Third, how many times has it be- 
come extinct since it was first organized ? 

Of my quotations, from their authors, he says : "We deny 
many things that they teach ;" intimating that I was not within 
the bounds of my legitimate work in quoting from the standard 
authors of his own church. He has already admitted, in a 
former discussion, that Mr. Campbell is of greater authority 
in his church than himself. He has already admitted that 
these are able men. 

He has affirmed that the church organization with which he 
himself stands identified is the visible church, or kingdom of 
Jesus Christ. He might hold the correct theory then of the 
commencement and have no connection with any church, and 
if the fact that the gentleman holds the correct theory, makes 
his the kingdom, then it might be proved that himself is the 
kingdom — the whole of it ! He must not simply prove simi- 
larity, or that they have a certain theory. He must come 
down to the question, and prove identity — that this present 



74 (Disciples' Church Claims, 

organization with which I, J. R. Lucas, stand identified, is the 
kingdom of God. That is the question before us, and, in or- 
der to show the characteristics of his church, I am bound to 
quote from his standard authors. I can not do otherwise. It 
is a matter of necessity. I am compelled to do it. 

But he can not understand my statement about the chil- 
dren of God having everlasting life. I affirmed that when 
God said that those who believed in him, possessed eternal life, 
it meant life without end, and when He said that the king- 
dom was an everlasting kingdom, that the kingdom was to have 
no end ; and if the kingdom had come to an end, eternal life 
might come to an end. He misapprehended my argument. 

But, Mat. xvi. 18, again, in regard to the setting up of the 
kingdom : "Upon this rock will I build my church." I think I 
have said enough upon this subject, showing from the lexicons, 
that that word is used in the sense of up-build, or increase 
more and more from the foundation. But I pass that. 

The last days. He intimated that the prophet Isaiah and 
the prophet Micah must have had reference to the day of Pen- 
tecost, because they said : "In the last days the mountain of 
the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the 
mountains ;" and he affirmed that Joel had reference to the 
same event, and that Peter quoted from Joel, affirming that 
that prophesy was fulfilled upon the day of Pentecost. I 
deny that Peter had reference to Micah, or to Isaiah ; he re- 
ferred to Joel, and Joel does not utter the same prediction at 
all. That is why I asked him to tell me where Joel made any 
such statement. Now, in regard to the last days, he can not 
count that prophesy there one day. It is plural — days, or last 
days, included the last dispensation from the commencement 
of the Christian dispensation, until Christ shall come the 
second time. 

But, I call your attention upon this subject to Heb. i. 1,2: 
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in 



Elder (Ray's Third (Reply. 75 

time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these 
last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed 
heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds ;" show- 
ing that those days down in the time of Paul, were included 
in the "last days." It is not confined then to Pentecost. 
Then, again, we have the testimony of Paul to Timothy : " But 
with the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb, without blem- 
ish, and without spot ; Who verily was foreordained before 
the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last 
times for you." It is 1st Peter i. 19, 20, 1 should have stated, 
showing that these last times include the time of Peter's letter. 

Your attention is again called to 1st Cor. xv: "Paul 
preached the gospel." My friend said that that gospel re- 
quired the death and the resurrection of Christ ; that the gos- 
pel could not have been preached before that time. I ask him, 
how were men saved before that time ? As he affirmed that 
the Saviour was not the Christ ! for, according to my friend, 
he was made Christ and Lord upon the day of Pentecost ; that 
he was not coronated till then; that he was not King till 
then ! I ask him, how were men saved before the day of Pen- 
tecost? Were they not saved in Christ? and, as I have 
already read, was he not "as a lamb slain from the foundation 
of the world." 

In regard to the prophetic preaching, he did not answer the 
question last night. The first beginning of prophetic preach- 
ing, he said, was back in the days of Abraham. I showed to 
him that the preaching of John was the beginning of the gospel, 
the introduction ; and that the Son of God preached it in its 
fullness. And in Luke, fourth chapter, he said: "This day" 
— quoting from Isaiah — " this day is this scripture fulfilled in 
your ears." Now, his interpretation would have it fulfilled on 
the day of Pentecost ! 

In regard to that word that he admits is in the perfect 
tense, anggike — at hand — I have a statement from Olshau- 



76 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

sen, his comment upon it, thus : " The perfect eggike is to 
be taken in the present sense ; so that the meaning is, the 
kingdom of God is already present." And, again, " In the 
latter relation the kingdom of God appears according to the 
New Testament conception, as actually present, not merely t 
in the person of the Saviour himself, but also in his believ- 
ing followers, who were translated into the spirit of his life.'' 
This shows that this eminent commentator takes this same 
position that the kingdom was actually present, and men 
were in it. But, Luke xvi. 16 — my friend thinks that they 
rushed toward John, where it is said, " that from the days 
of John the Baptist until now that men pressed into the 
kingdom of God," or, rather, as the quotation is, " the law 
and the prophets were until John; since that time the 
kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth in- 
to it ;" but he has them pressing around John, for pressing 
into the kingdom ! Then you will have John in the kingdom 
according to Barnes, the authority quoted. Upon this subject 
the eminent critic and commentator, Alford, says : "The ac- 
tual existence of the kingdom of heaven as a present and 
powerful fact." (In Lange, p. 253) So he contended that 
the kingdom was in existence as a present and powerful fact 
at that time. This is the testimony of one of the finest schol- 
ars and critics known in the world. 

I was sorry he made a mistake in saying that I said that 
Jesus did not call the apostles until after John was dead. The 
report will show that as a palpable mistake, and I call for the 
report. 

Mr. Lucas — I call for the report. 

Mr. Eay — Shall we wait till it is read ? 

Mr. Lucas — Settle it now. 

Mr. Kay — I was going to state what I stated first ; that will 
be in point, and perhaps that will satisfy you when I make my 
statement, that the apostles were not called until John was in pris- 



Elder (Ray's Third (Reply. 77 

on. Some suppose that he was in prison a year and a half 
before he was executed. I state on my own veracity and my 
recollection and knowledge of the facts, that — 

Mr. Lucas — As far as the argument is concerned, I will 
accept that statement. 

Mr. Eay — If you call for the report, we will have it read — 

Mr. Lucas — As far as the argument is concerned, I will 
accept that statement. 

Mr. Ray — Very well. John did not set up the kingdom. 
He came to prepare the materials made ready for the work. 
And as to its organization into a church, this was done by the 
Son of God himself. The twelve apostles were the first menfbers 
as an organic body. This has already been presented, and I do 
not think he has answered it. We referred to that symbolical 
city that represents the bride, the lamb's wife, the church which 
had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve 
apostles of the Lamb. And the kingdom in its origin was like 
a grain of mustard seed, said the Saviour. It could not be like 
a grain of mustard seed on the day of Pentecost. But he gave 
us a rule to this effect, that things in the future are often spoken 
of as present or past, but things present are never spoken of as 
future. This, I believe, is a fair statement of the rule. 

Mr. Lucas — Well, that is not all of it. 

Mr. Ray — That things present are spoken of as future, I 
wish to read a statement from Crosby's Greek Grammar in 
regard to tenses. He says : 

" The relations of time have nothing sensible to fix the con- 
ception of the mind. It ranges therefore with freedom through 
all time, the past, the present, and the future ; and, without 
difficulty, conceives of the past or future as present, and even 
of the present or future as already past. That the Greek lan- 
guage should have a peculiar freedom in the interchange of 
tenses is but the natural consequence of the wonderful vivaci- 
ty of the Greek mind." (P. 359.) On the same page he says : 



78 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

"The pres., in its widest generic sense, includes all the oilier 
tenses (see B.) ; as a definite tense used archronically (§ 565), 
it includes the impf. in its widest generic sense, includes all the 
pasttenses (§173); and the Aor. , all the definite and complete tenses" 
Thus it appears that the future is sometimes spoken of as pres- 
ent, and that the present is sometimes spoken of as future. And 
he said that if this rule was overthrown he would give up the 
contest in regard to the setting up of the kingdom. Well, his 
rule is gone, according to one of the best Greek grammarians. 

Again, in regard to the Clay letter. I understood him to 
deny that whole matter in regard to the Clay letter. I give 
you the statement of Mr. Kichardson — Memoirs of Mr. Camp- 
bell, vol. 2, p. 548: " Having received highly commendatory 
letters of introduction from Henry Clay," and then in a foot 
note he says: "The following is Mr. Clay's letter, which he 
kindly forwarded to Mr. Campbell when he learned that he 
was going abroad. Like many others he was under the im- 
pression that Mr. Campbell w T as a doctor of divinity, and mis- 
conceived his true position in other respects." And this quo- 
tation is a part of that letter: 

"Dr. Campbell is among the most eminent citizens of the 
United States, distinguished- for his great learning and ability, 
for his successful devotion to the education of youth, for his 
piety, and as the head and founder of one of the most im- 
portant and respectable religious communities in the United 
States;" showing that the publication of that letter was an 
indorsement of the fact contained in it, that Mr. Campbell 
was the founder and head of the gentleman's church ; and Mr. 
Clay was not so ignorant of the position occupied by Mr. Camp- 
bell, as not to know what position he occupied. 

But, I call your attention to another historic statement, from 
Mr. Charles V. Segar (Life of A. Campbell, p. 25): "Alex- 
ander Campbell soon became chiefly and prominently known 
as the recognized head of a new religious movement, the pur- 



Elder (Ray's Third (Reply. 79 

pose of which was to restore primitive Christianity in all its 
simplicity and beauty. Out of this movement has grown a 
people, who choose to call themselves Christians, or Disciples, 
now numbering not less than five hundred thousand members 
in the United States." 

Alexander Campbell became the recognized head of this 
new religious movement, the purpose of which was to restore 
primitive Christianity — showing that he began from nothing 
to restore the church ; and yet my friend repudiates the head- 
ship of the founder of his church. 

But, he tells us that they have the right foundation — that 
they have built upon the Lord Jesus Christ. I have never 
read a writer in all that denomination yet, that simply stated 
that Jesus Christ, without some qualifying term, was the 
foundation of the church. Nearly all of them say it was 
Peter s confession, or Peter's proposition, or Peter's statement 
of a truth ; but the Dr. is being educated a little toward the 
truth ; and I am glad of it, for he says now, that it is the 
Lord Jesus Christ. This will do, but it is not the view taken 
generally by writers in his denomination. 

I would like to have your attention to a statement I have 
in regard to the foundation (page 58 of Millenial Harbinger, 
vol. 1), Mr. Campbell says: "But we will attempt to show 
that there will be, or that there is now, a scheme of things 
presented in what is called the Ancient Gospel, long enough, 
broad enough, strong enough for the whole superstructure 
called the Millenial Church — and that it will alone be the m- 
strument of converting the whole human race, and of uniting 
all Christians upon one and the same foundation." Here, 
then, Mr. Campbell presents his scheme of things, which he calls 
"the ancient gospel" as the foundation for the church. The 
gentleman is mistaken, then, in regard to their taking Jesus 
Christ alone as their founder and head. 

Now, I wish to ask another question or two. Can any one be 



80 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

saved — a Christian — outside of the kingdom of Christ, out of the 
church? I hope he will not forget this question. But, again, 
in regard to the setting up of the church : Were the original 
one hundred and twenty disciples, including the twelve, introduced 
into the Christian Church without Christian baptism f The gen- 
tleman contends that the Christian baptism was first adminis- 
tered on the day of Pentecost. The one hundred and twenty 
original members were there, and were not baptized. He re- 
jects the baptism administered by John, and by Christ, from 
the Christian dispensation, and, if Christian baptism is essen- 
tial to membership in the Christian Church, then he has one 
hundred and twenty members without that membership ! 

But I wish to advance in my line of argument in the nega- 
tive, and to call your attention to the fact that I was proving 
that Mr. Campbell is recognized as the founder and head of 
the gentleman's church. Again, Mr. Bichardson, their histo- 
rian (vol. 2, p. 398), says: "From the more elevated region 
of religious thought which Mr. Campbell occupied, he could 
well look down with pity upon all the vain attempts which 
were at this time made to arrest the progress of his plea for 
the restoration of the primitive gospel, the original unity of 
the church." 

This gentleman says, then, that Mr. Campbell, elevated to 
his position as a reformer, and recognized as the head of the 
new religious movement, could now "look down with pity 
upon the vain attempts which were made to arrest the pro- 
gress of his plea for reformation." Again (vol. 1, p. 257), 
Mr. Bichardson says : " Here was an effort, not so much for 
the reformation of the church as was that of Luther and Cal- 
vin, and to a certain extent even that of the Haldanes, but 
for its complete restoration at once to its primitive purity and 
perfection." He was not aiming to reform the church, accord- 
ing to this statement, but to restore or set up a church, and if 
he reformed the church, where was the church before he re- 



Elder (Ray's Third' (Reply. 81 

formed it ? — what church did he reform ? What was it called 
before he reformed it ? I hope the gentleman will note these. 
Again, vol. 2, p. 38 of the Memoirs, he proceeds: "The 
process of demolition was not with him an ultimate end, for if 
he sought to remove the awkward and ricketty structures, of 
partyism, or the broken and accumulated rubbish of human 
tradition, it was that he might build again upon their ancient 
sites the bulwarks and towers of Zion." Here it is acknowl- 
edged that Alexander Campbell was attempting to destroy and 
erect systems of religion. He did not propose to stop when he 
had pulled down the existing kingdoms, but his w r ork was to 
build again upon their ruins the bulwarks of Zion ! Here, then, 
is the claim that Alexander Campbell was a builder of their 
Zion ; and there is no escape from it, unless you prove that 
Mr. Kichardson, one of the ablest men the Disciples ever had 
in their denomination, did not understand w 7 hat he was talking 
about. Again, Mr. Richardson affirms that the purpose of 
Mr. Campbell was a restoration rather than a reformation (vol. 
2, p. 254). And in Fleetwood's Life of Christ, in the appen- 
dix, there is a statement in regard to the rise of the denomina- 
tion of "Campbellite Baptists or Disciples :" "This denomi- 
nation is sometimes known by the name of Christians. It was 
founded by the Rev. Alexander Campbell about the year 
1827." And I have testimony upon testimony upon this sub- 
ject, that Mr. Campbell even claimed to be the harbinger and 
was preparing the w T ay for the second coming of Christ. He 
makes a statement here [Memoirs, vol. 2, p. 252] to this effect: 
" We. have to dispossess demons, and exorcise unclean spirits, 
as well as to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. The 
chief priests, scribes and rulers of the people are generally in 
league against us ;" showing that he compared his work to that 
of the Son of God himself. This church is not the church of 
the living God, because it has Alexander Campbell for its 
founder and head. My fourth negative argument is this : " The 



82 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

Disciples are not the church of Christ, because they are 
nat built upon the Bible foundation. I have shown you that 
they build upon Mr. Campbell's interpretation of the Bible. 
They do not administer the same plan of salvation, that salva- 
tion bestowed by the Son of God himself while he was upon 
the earth, who said to that poor penitent woman: "Thy sins 
are forgiven. Thy faith hath saved thee. Go in peace." 
[Time Expired.] 



FOURTH ADDRESS OP DR. LUCAS. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen : I wish to notice a few points in my friend's 
last speech, and then I shall advance with my line of argument 
in favor of my proposition. And, first, I will consider for a 
moment the gentleman's reference to the "last days." I sim- 
ply repeat, that I am willing to leave that matter with you. 
Peter says in Acts, 2d chapter, in referring to the prophesy of 
Joel: "This is that which was spoken by the prophet in the 
last days." He says, right there : "This is that which was 
spoken by the prophet Joel," that he speaks of as occurring in 
the last days, and I presume the apostle understood himself, 
and I take just what he said upon that question. But " Paul 
preached the gospel." Now, I have stated that the gospel was 
never preached in fact, and the gentleman has not denied that 
proposition, only in a kind of circuitous way. I stated that 
Paul preached the gospel in fact, but that the gospel in fact 
never was preached until the day of Pentecost, and that no 
man can preach the gospel in fact unless he preaches that 
Jesus has died, was buried, and has risen again ; and 
before that time these facts never were preached in fact — 
they never were preached as having occurred, as having 
taken place. But he wants to know, how people were saved 
before that time. I suppose that with regard to the Jews, 
with all those living before the death of Jesus, the gentleman 
and I will have no controversy. I say they were saved by 
looking to the one that was to come, believing on the one, or 
looking to the one that was to come — the one that was prom- 



84 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

ised. And hence, so far as the gospel of their salvation was 
concerned, it was a gospel in promise, and so far as John was 
concerned, he preached to the people, saying or requiring that 
they should believe in Him that was to come after — that was 
to come after him. But the rule referred to by me, the gen- 
tleman seems to misconceive the point that I had in view in 
the presentation of the rule, I had stated before, and if I 
omitted it in the statement of the rule, it was simply an omis- 
sion. I have stated in former discussions the rule that the 
Scriptures very frequently speak of things as though present 
or as past that were yet in the future, while they never speak of 
things that are past or present, or things present or past as 
belonging to the future. I stated that this was true with re- 
gard to the Scriptures of God, and if he can show that this 
rule is a fallacy, then I stated that so far as my interpretations 
of the passages referred to were concerned, that I would yield 
the point and would be compelled to give another solution of 
the passages. That was my statement, and I renew it now, 
and let him show the fallacy of the rule as presented. 

But his statement with regard to John being in prison. I 
accept that statement so far as the present argument is con- 
cerned, and there is no change in the argument or difficulty 
whatever presented. That the disciples of Jesus Christ, or 
the apostles, were never called till after John was imprisoned, 
and as they formed, according to my friend's position — and w T e 
will not controvert that — that they formed the charter mem- 
bers of the church, so far as the present point is concerned, 
we now simply take that statement, but they were not called 
until after John was imprisoned, and if they were the charter 
members of the church, as a matter of course the church or 
kingdom was not established until those members were called, 
But John preached the kingdom of God is at hand before he 
was in prison. If he preached the kingdom of God at hand 
before he was in prison, and these members were not called 



(Dr. Lucas' Fourth Address. 85 

until after he was in prison, it stands as clear as that two and 
tw T o make four that John did not preach the actual existence 
of the kingdom, but preached that the kingdom was drawing 
near. But, so far as the argument is concerned, I do not care 
whether he was in prison or executed, for the argument is pre- 
cisely the same, and the difficulty that we presented before is 
the same. But, again, he says that he understood me to deny 
the whole affair of the Clay letter. I venture to say, no- 
body in this house understood me to say that, not a single 
soul in this house — I will venture to say — understood me to 
make any such statement as to deny the whole affair. I stated 
that Alexander Campbell never showed that letter ; it can- 
not be proven ; but that Henry Clay, from his own personal 
friendship toward Mr. Campbell, having presided as Presi- 
dent Moderator in the discussion between Mr. Campbell and 
Mr. Rice, and a personal acquaintance having learned of the 
expected tour of Mr. Campbell to Europe, out of pure friend- 
ship he sent to Mr. Campbell the letter. That is what I said. 
Is that denying the whole affair ? And. yet he understood me 
to deny the whole affair ! He has a singular understanding 
sometimes. But the authority that he quotes with reference 
to Mr. Campbell as the head of the reformatory movement. 
I have said all upon that subject that I wish to say. If my 
friend wishes to continue to quote these authorities, that he calls 
authorities, just let him quote them. But he says that I ac- 
knowledge that Mr. Campbell was greater authority than my- 
self. I did not do any such thing. My friend is mistaken. 
He is simply mistaken upon that question. I stated that Mr. 
Campbell was a greater man than I ever claimed to be, and I 
say that yet. But, so far as the church is concerned, Mr. 
Campbell is of no more authority than anybody else 
— no more authority than anybody else. Neither Mr. 
Campbell, nor any one else, is authority with the church 
with which I sustain a connection, only so far as they present 



86 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

the unadulterated Word, and then it is not the man that con- 
stitutes that authority, but the Word, the Word of the living 
God. Mr. Campbell is of no more authority in the church 
than I am. The Word of God — this constitutes the authority. 

But we now advance in our argument, and we present you 
— having shown in our fourth argument that Jesus Christ was 
the head of the church, and that he was the only head — we 
now call your attention, 

Fifthly — To this fact, that we possess the true scriptural 
name — the family name — the name given to the family by the 
divine authority — as we shall labor to prove. But, before we 
proceed with the argument, we desire to make a few statements 
in your hearing. The first statement to which we call your 
attention, in regard to the name Christian, is this : the term 
Christian is derived from the term Christ ; the term Christ 
is translated from the Greek word Ghristos — which means 
anoinfced — Christos or Christ — the anointed. Seeing, then, 
that the term Christian is derived from the term Christ, which 
means anointed, may*we not affirm that Christians are the 
anointed children of God ? Secondly — this name is a name of 
distinction, intended to distinguish those who wear it from all 
other people. Thirdly — the name Christian is intended to 
point out those who bear it as the property of Christ, as 
belonging to Christ. Fourthly — the name Christian is a 
catholic name, intended to swallow up all other ecclesiastical 
titles. Fifthly — the name is a patronymic name. Sixthly — 
this name Christian was given by divine authority ; and this 
point we expect to establish in your minds beyond a reasona- 
ble doubt. 

Before making our direct appeal to the inspired Scriptures, 
however, we will read in your hearing some statements gath- 
ered from a few of the learned ones who have commented and 
who have written upon the Bible and the subjects contained 
therein. The first name that we shall notice in your hearing 



(Dr. Lticas' Fourth Address. 87 

is that of Dr. Clark. We read Dr. Clark's comment on a por- 
tion of it as found upon the 11th chapter of the Acts of the 
Apostles and the 26th verse : ''And the disciples were called 
Christians first at Antioch." This is what Dr. Clark says : 

"It is evident it was the name taken from Christ, their 
master ; as the Platonists and Pythagoreans had their names 
from their masters, Plato and Pythagoras. Now, as these had 
their names from those great masters, because they attended 
their teachings, and credited their doctrines, so the disciples 
were called Christians, because they took Christ for their 
teacher, crediting his doctrines, and following the rule of life 
laid down by him. It has been a question, by whom was this 
name given to the disciples. Some think tliey assumed it ; 
others that the inhabitants of Antioch gave it to them, and 
others that it was given by Saul and Barnabas." The 
latter opinion is favored by the Codex Bezce, which reads the 
25th and 26th verses : " Thus, after hearing that Saul was at 
Tarsus, he departed seeking for him, who, having found him, he 
besought him to go to Antioch, and when they were assem- 
bled with the church a whole year, and instructed a great 
number, and there they first called the disciples at Antioch 
Christians." 

The word chrematisai, in our common text, which we trans- 
late were called, signifies, in the New Testament, to appoint, 
warn, or nominate by divine direction. In this sense the word is 
used in Mat. ii. 12. If, therefore, the name was given by 
divine appointment, it is most likely that Saul and Barnabas 
were directed to give it; and that, therefore, the name 
Christian is from God, as well as that grace and holiness 
which are so essentially required and implied in the character. 
Before this time the Jewish converts were simply called, 
among themselves, disciples — that is, scholars, believers, 
saints, the church, or assembly — and by their enemies, Naza- 
renes, Galileeans, the men of this way or sect ; and, perhaps, 



88 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

by other names, which have not come down to us. They con- 
sidered themselves as one family, and hence the appellation of 
brethren was frequent among them. It was the design of 
God to make all who believed of one heart and one soul, that 
they might consider him as their Father, and live and love 
like children of the same household." 

A Christian, therefore, is the highest character which any 
human being can bear upon earth, and to receive it from God, 
as those appear to have done, how glorious the title. 

Thus Dr. Clark speaks upon the subject of the name, and 
we will call your attention to his closing remarks upon this 
subject : "It appears that 'Christian' was the first general ap- 
pellative of the followers of our blessed Lord, and there is 
presumptive evidence, as we have seen, that the appellative 
name was by divine appointment. How very few of those who 
profess this religion are satisfied with this title. That very 
church that arrogates all to itself has totally abandoned this 
title, and its members call themselves Eoman Catholics, which 
is absurd, because the adjective and substantive include op- 
posite ideas. 

"Catholic signifies universal, and Roman signifies of, or be- 
longing to Rome. If it be merely Roman, it can not be Cath- 
olic. If it be Catholic, it can not be confined to Rome. But 
it is not Catholic, nor universal in any sense of the word, for 
it contains but a small part of the people who profess Chris- 
tianity. The term Protestant has more common sense in it, 
but not much more piety. Almost all sects and parties pro- 
ceed in the same line, but Christian is a title seldom heard 
of, and the spirit and practices of Christians but rarely occur. 
When all return to the spirit of the gospel, they will, prob- 
ably, resume the appellative of Christians." 

Thus Dr. Clark closes his remarks upon this subject. 

I now wish to invite your attention to the statement of Dr. 
Davies upon this subject. Dr. Davies was president of the 



(Dr. Lucas' Fourth Address. 89 

college of New Jersey, and one of the ripest scholars of his 
day. He was a member of the Presbyterian Church, while 
Dr. Clark, as you are aware, was a member of the Methodist 
Church. Therefore, what these men say upon the question is 
stated from the force of truth, and not from any religious par- 
tiality, or friendship arising from religious association. Here 
are the words of Mr. Davies upon the subject, found in Acts 
xi. 26. And this is the w r ay he discourses upon the subject 
in his first volume of sermons, page 209 : " The name of 
Christian was not the first by which the followers of Christ 
were distinguished. Their enemies called them Galileeans, 
Nazarenes, and other names of contempt, but, among them- 
selves, they were called saints, from their holiness ; disciples, 
from their learning their religion from Christ as their teacher ; 
believers, from their believing in him as the Messiah, and 
brethren, from their mutual love and their relation to God 
and each other. But after some time they w r ere distinguished 
by the name of Christians. This they first received at Anti- 
och, an heathen city, a city infamous for all manner of vice 
and debauchery ; a city that had its name from Antiochus 
Epiphanes, the bitterest enemy the church of the Jews ever 
had. A city very rich and powerful, from whence the Christian 
name would have an extensive circulation, but it is long since 
laid in ruins, and unprotected by that sacred name. In such a 
city was Christ pleased to confer his name upon his followers, 
and you can not but see that the very choice of a place dis- 
covers his wisdom, grace and justice." 

The original word that is here rendered "called," seems to 
intimate that they were called Christians by divine appoint- 
ment, for it generally signifies an oracular nomination, or 
declaration from God, and to this purpose it is generally trans- 
lated. Hence, it follows that the very name Christian, as 
well as the thing, was of a divine origin — assumed not by a 
private agreement of the disciples, among themselves, but by 



90 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

the appointment of God. And in this view it is a remarkable 
accomplishment of an old prophesy of Isaiah, found in Isaiah 
lxii. 2 : " The Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all 
kings thy glory : and thou shalt be called by a new name, 
which the mouth of the Lord shall name." 

See also Isaiah lxv. 15: "The Lord * * shall call his 
servants by another name." We call your attention to these 
extracts from these men, who are not by religious association 
at all prejudiced in favor of the name, for their organizations 
do not adopt this name. They do not adopt this name, but 
yet the force of truth compels these men to make the state- 
ments they have made upon this subject. I have made these 
quotations, especially the one from Dr. Clark, for the following 
reasons : First, to bring before you the reasons which the Dr. 
had for thinking that the name Christian was given by 
divine authority. Secondly, to get before your minds the 
causes which led to the abandonment of the name as a church 
name, and the adoption of sectarian titles. My third object 
in introducing into this discussion Dr. Clark's testimony is, to 
show his view as to the use that will likely be made of the 
name Christian, when we all return to the true spirit of the 
gospel. From what he says, he must have believed that the 
time will yet come, when all true believers in Christ will re- 
turn to the spirit of the gospel, and that when that time 
comes, all party names w T ill be abandoned, and the followers 
of our Divine Lord will be simply called Christians. 

It may also develop further light upon this subject to intro- 
duce the passages of Scripture referred to by Dr. Clark, in 
order to confirm the meaning which is attached to the Greek 
word kreematizo, as found here, Mat. ii. 12 : "And being warned 
of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they 
departed into their own country another way." Also Luke 
ii. 26 : "And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, 
that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's 
Christ." 



(Dr. Lucas' Fourth Address. 91 

Acts x. 22 : "And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a 
just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among 
all the nations of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy 
angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of 
thee." 

In the first of these passages the name of God is not found 
in the original. The whole expression "warned of God" is 
translated from the simple word kreematizo. The same is true 
in reference to Acts x. 22. The word here is rendered "re- 
veal" in Luke ii. 26. And the Holy Spirit is named as the 
agent by whom the revelation was made. But the admonition 
made by the Holy Spirit is of divine authority as being made 
by the Heavenly Father himself. These examples show very 
clearly that the king's translators understood this term "fcree- 
matizo' to signify, as Greenfield has defined it in the New Testa- 
ment, to import a divine warning or admonition, giving in- 
structions or directions under the guidance of inspiration. 
This word occurs nine times in the New Testament Scriptures, 
and is translated in the common version "warned of," or "from 
God," four times; "revealed," once; " call," twice ; "we 
speak," once; and "admonish," once. In all these occur- 
rences of the word there are but two upon which there has 
ever been any discussion, so far as I know. There has never 
been any discussion whatever, so far as my knowledge goes, 
upon the occurrences of the ward referred to, except upon two 
passages, and one of these is in Acts xi. 26, and one is found 
in Romans vii. 3. All have agreed that the "warning" and 
"revealing" and " speaking" came by divine authority. As 
before stated, the exceptions are, Romans vii. 3. and Acts xi. 
26. In Romans vii. 3: " She shall be called an adulteress," 
surely means more than that she shall be so styled by her ene- 
mies, or by the people. It signifies that she shall be so called 
by the will of God. So I think in regard to the passage Acts 
xi. 26. It means that the disciples were called Christians by 



92 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

the divine authority which Paul and Barnabas received from 
God the Divine Father. 

In further proof of the proposition that the name Christian 
is of divine origin, we will compare Amos ix. 11, 12, with Acts 
xv. 16, 17. The former reads thus : " In that day I will raise 
up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the 
breaches thereof ; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build 
it as in the days of old : that they may possess the remnant of 
Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name." 
The latter reads thus : "And after this I will return, and will 
build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down, and 
I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up : That 
the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gen- 
tiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth 
all these things." 

In regard to these Scriptures, I will now state that whatever 
is said to be done, or is to be done in fulfilment of them, is 
done by the Lord. For you will remember that the statement 
is that the Lord "doeth all these things." Further, all the 
apostles understood Amos ix. 12, to apply to the Christian 
Church. At the time the apostle James makes this quotation, 
the apostles and elders of the church at Jerusalem were sitting 
in solemn council deliberating on one of the most important 
questions that had ever disturbed the church of God, [Time 
Expttcfj).] 



ELDER RAY'S FOURTH REPLY. 



Mr. President, Brethren Moderators, and Eespected 
Audience: I call your attention again to the Dr.'s rule con- 
cerning time. I understand him, and I think it will be so 
found in the report, that he made his rule as a criticism upon 
the Greek language. Mr. Crosby, in his Greek grammar, says 
in regard to the tenses : "The future sometimes occurs for the 
present or past tense, as a less distinct and positive form of 
expression, or as though the action were not yet finished." 
Thus his rule has gone by the board. 

It is said that the last shall be first. I will call your atten- 
tion to the testimony of Alexander Campbell upon the name 
Christian. As he was the founder and head of the religious 
movement out of which his church has come, he certainly had 
as much right to name his own house, his own church that he 
built, as one of his children. I believe the father of the child 
has the best right to name it. The Dr. comes up now to prove 
that the Disciples have the characteristics of the true church, 
because they have the right name. In the proposition he uses 
the phrase "Christian Church. " I ask him, just now, to make 
a minute of this, and tell me in what chapter and verse of 
God's Word the term "Christian Church" is found, and where 
" Christian" stands in connection with "church," 

By common consent, the name Christian is used by all de- 
nominations who profess the Christian faith. It is applied to 
individuals just as it was applied in the Bible, whether it came 
by the divine appointment or not. If his argument proves 
anything, it will prove that the Methodist Church, the Presby- 



94 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

terian Church, the Catholic Church, and all the churches have 
the right name ; because they use the name Christian much 
more frequently than it is used by the apostles. It was not 
given by them, it was given by those who opposed the cause of 
Christ. It was alluded to by Peter : "If any man suffer as a 
Christian," This shows that they were persecuted as Chris- 
tians. But Mr, B. W. Stone, who was one of the reformers 
mentioned as associated with Mr. Campbell, when the church 
was being formed and about to receive its local habitation and 
name. Mr. Campbell had a name for it, and Mr, Stone want- 
ed to name it. They had a controversy about the name. Mr. 
Stone contended for the name "Christian Church," and that 
it was of divine authority, and of divine appointment. Mr. 
Campbell pleaded and contended against him. I read from 
the Milennial Harbinger, vol. 2, p. 394 : 

"And if ever chrematizo signifies to name or call by divine 
authority, it is most certainly from accident or from circum- 
stances, and not from the import of the term : for it means no 
such thing. The root of the word is chrema, business ; and be- 
cause it was usual to designate or name persons from their busi- 
ness, as Smith, Taylor, Baker, Clark, &c, so the word chrema- 
tizo, formed from chrema, came actively to signify, to name, or 
to call, and passively to be named or called." Mr. Campbell 
continues : "Our worthy friend has been too precipitate also 
in quoting Adam Clark on this passage. Adam Clark begins 
the section from which he quotes with an if — 'if, therefore, the 
name was given by divine appointment.' He enters not decis- 
ively into the matter. That the word sometimes signifies to 
warn, admonish, or appoint, whether by God, angels, or men, 
is abundantly evident, and occurs sometimes in this accepta- 
tion in the New Testament. In this we agree with Adam 
Clark. But with Dr. Campbell we agree that chrematizo does 
not necessarily imply from God more than the word warning 
does. This is evident from the reference which, both in sacred 



Elder (fcay's Fourth (Reply. 95 

authors and in classical, it often has to inferior agents. He 
condemns Dr. Doddridge's version of Acts xi. 26 (see his note 
on Mat. ii. 12). I am bold to affirm, in the face of all criti- 
cism, that here is not the least authority in the word here used, 
for concluding that the word Christian came from God, any- 
more than from Antiochus Epiphanes ! This may be too strong 
for some who contend that the name Christian is of divine au- 
thority; but let them put me to the proof. 

"That it was given neither by dream, oracle, angel, nor apos- 
tle, is, in my judgment, by far the more probable opinion. If 
it had been given by the authority of the Lord it would not 
have been delayed for ten years after the day of Pentecost, nor 
reserved for the city of Antioch to be the place of its origin. 
' The Disciples were first named Christians in Antioch A.D. 43/ " 
Again, p. 395, Mr. Campbell says : "The Antiochians called 
the disciples first Christians ; Agrippa used the term once in re- 
ference to himself; and Peter said that if any man was indited 
as a Christian, or 'if any man suffered as a Christian, let him 
not be ashamed ;' which argues that it was under this name their 
enemies persecuted and traduced them. But no document has 
come down to us authorizing us to think that this name Chris- 
tians was regarded by any of the apostles as of divine appoint- 
ment. If Paul, in any of his letters — if Peter, James, or John 
had only once said : 'To the Christians in Rome, Corinth, Gal- 
atia, Greece, Asia, Judaea/ or anywhere else ; then, indeed., 
there might have been some ground to think that they regard- 
ed it as of divine appointment ! And, recollect, it was fifty 
years and more from the time they were first called Christians, 
before all the New Testament was written. They were called 
disciples, saints, believers, the called, sanctified, in the Acts 
and in the Epistles ; but never once addressed under the name 
Christians. 

"Now T let it be remembered, that we have no objection to the 
name Christian if we only deserve it ; nor predilection for the 



96 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

name disciple, except for its antiquity and modesty ; but when 
it is plead for as of divine authority, and as the only or most 
fitting name which can be adopted, we must lift up our voice 
against the imposition, and contend for the liberty where the 
Lord has left us free." 

Thus, according to Mr. Campbell's estimate, it is an impo- 
sition to contend that the name Christian is of divine authori- 
ty and the most fitting name that can be adopted. 

A reference was made by the author that the Dr. read to the 
new name (Isaiah lxii; 2) "which the mouth of the Lord shall 
name." We will find what the name of the church is, if he 
adopts that name. "And the Gentiles shall see thy righteous- 
ness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new 
name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name. Thou shalt 
also be a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal 
diadem in the hand of thy God. Thou shalt no more be term- 
ed Forsaken ; neither shall thy land any more be termed des- 
olate: but thou shalt be called Hephzi-bah, and thy land Beu- 
lah: for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be 
married." Thus, the name of his church is Hephzi-bah, if he 
adopts the name of his author ; and the country in which it 
lives must be called Beulah, or else it can not be the true 
church ! Is that the name of your church ? You have made 
a very unfortunate quotation. Now, if you will examine the 
subject you will find that Zion, at a certain time in the future, 
when the Jews shall return and the land be inhabited, and 
thus married — that God is going to call Zion Hephzi-bah, be- 
cause he delights in her. Does it not seem strange, dear 
friends, that you are asked to believe that he has the true 
church just because he has the right name ? Suppose that I had 
a pet, it don't matter just exactly what kind it is — it may be a 
goat, however, and I call that goat by a new name, and I call 
it "sheep," will anybody say "that's a sheep, because it has 
the right name ?" I may call it by the name sheep 9 and it will 



Elder (Ray's Fourth (Reply. 97 

come, and you may call it by the name sheep and it will come ; 
and yet it is a goat It is strange to me that in this enlight- 
ened land, a denomination will come up and claim that they are 
the true church because they have the right name ! But the 
name Christian was never given by divine authority even to 
individual Christians — the children of God. 

I do not object to the name as we ordinarily use it ; but I 
don't claim it is of divine authority ; for, in a verse or two be- 
low, where they were first called " Christians," Luke says, 
"disciples;" and all afterward they speak of themselves as 
disciples, and not once is a letter addressed to " Christians," or 
to the " Christian Church" — not once. They are called 
" saints," " disciples," " believers," " children of God," and all 
those names. 

Now, let us pass to his other arguments, although he has a 
great many more arguments on the name Christian ! He af- 
firms the negative that Mr. Campbell never showed Mr. Clay's 
letter of introduction to any one. How does he know it ? 
Did he go with Mr. Campbell? He affirms that he did not 
show it, and that he did not ask for it. He don't even know 
that. He don't know, if it was sent to him. 

The ancients were saved by looking to, and believing in, the 
Saviour to come. Thus the gospel was preached to them. 
And when the Saviour came and preached his own gospel, he 
preached his Qwn death and sufferings at Jerusalem, and that 
he was to be buried, and that he was to rise again the third 
day ; he preached his own death, burial, and resurrection just 
as certainly as Paul ever preached it. And yet, they tell me 
that Jesus did not preach the gospel ! It is strange — strange 
indeed. He preached the gospel of faith in all of its fullness, 
the gospel of salvation. He had the power to forgive sins 
through faith in himself, and not another. 

The Dr. says : "The apostles were charter members of the 
church," who went in, I suppose, without Christian baptism. 



98 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

I should like to know what Scripture he finds that in, about 
being charter members, going in without baptism. That is a 
kind of a fix up to avoid the great difficulty of getting one hun- 
dred and twenty original disciples into the Christian Church, 
without Christian baptism. John's baptism was Christian 
baptism. That administered by Christ was Christian bap- 
tism, and it was before the day of Pentecost. 

Acts i. 26: "And they gave forth their lots; and the lot 
fell upon Mathias ; and he was numbered with the eleven 
apostles." They were transacting church business, by divine 
authority, before the day of Pentecost. 

But Mr. Campbell is of no more authority than the Dr. I sup- 
pose that he is known the best. The very name of Campbellite 
Church, was from Alexander Campbell; and a great ado is 
made over his writings and positions, but we have heard 
nothing of the kind over this gentleman. And, just now, he 
announces himself as a higher authority in his church than 
Mr. Campbell! 

He says: "We take the Bible as our rule, faith and prac- 
tice." I wish to show you, dear friends, that he is a little 
mistaken about taking the Bible. I quote from Mr. Lard's 
Address, p. 18 — a funeral address delivered after the death of 
Mr. Campbell, containing a little biographical sketch. Speak- 
ing of Mr. Campbell's great ability to discover the truth, he 
says : " That truth lay on the sacred page as much for others 
as for him. Why, then, did others not discover it? Is it no 
small merit to say that he alone did what none before him 
had done, and this to the glory of Christ and the happiness of 
man." 

Again, he says, on p. 25 : "As his own conceptions of this 
blessed book began to assume accuracy and definiteness, he 
began to mold and shape the thoughts of others. Immense 
crowds flocked to his appointments, to hear him. They were 
delighted with his noble plea for the Bible and the Bible 



Elder (Ray's Fourth (Reply. 99 

alone. As he taught men how to read it (for at that time, 
let it astound none, men did not know), their appreciation of 
it arose ; and as their appreciation of the Bible arose, their ap- 
preciation of human creeds sank ; and their appreciation of 
creeds once on the wane, could never be stopped." 

Then, according to the testimony of Mr. Lard, the gentle- 
man's church would never, so far as we can conjecture, have 
known the truth of God's Word, had it not been for Mr. Camp- 
bell. He discovered that which none before him had done ; 
and then taught them how to read the Bible ; because they 
did not even know how to read it until he taught them ! And 
he began to mould their thoughts ! I have had my sympathies 
aroused very much sometimes, when men have yielded their 
minds and thoughts to be moulded by great men. Let us be 
careful how we give up our thoughts thus to be moulded. 

Now, again, we wish your attention to the fact that I deny 
that they are governed by God's Word. I make it one of my 
negative arguments, that the Disciples do 'not take the Bible as 
the rule oj their faith and practice. In the former discussion, 
my worthy friend repudiated one of the clauses of the Lord's 
prayer, as not in point at the present time ; and when one of 
his good brethren before him repeated the Lord's prayer, he 
contradicted the statement I made about it, forgetting what 
had been stated, and, it seemed, tried to get the old brother to 
take back his prayer. But Mr. Campbell himself repudiates 
that form of prayer, because it says "Thy kingdom come." 
How, then, can they take the Bible, when they lay part of it 
aside, like an old almanac, out of date. 

In regard to the plan of salvation, Jesus said to the poor, 
weeping, penitent woman, "Thy faith hath saved thee." The 
New Testament of the gentleman's church begins with the 
38th verse of the 2d chapter of Acts, and they only take Mr. 
Campbell's interpretation of that which, I think, is a miscon- 
ception. 



100 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

Now, in regard to the transaction of the church business, Mr. 
Campbell says (Christian System, p. 89): "No private indi- 
vidual has a right to accuse any person before the whole com- 
munity. The charge, in no case, is to be preferred before the 
whole congregation. Such a procedure is without precedent 
in the law, or in the gospel — in any well regulated society, 
church, or State. If, then, any brother fall into any public 
offense, those privy to it notify the elders of the church, or 
those for the time being presiding over it, of the fact, and of 
the evidence on which they rely. The matter is then in the 
hands of the proper persons. They prosecute the investiga- 
tion of it, and, on denial of the accused, seek to convict him 
of the allegation." And then, again, he says : " The Chris- 
tian Church engrosses old men, young men, and babes in 
Christ. Shall the voice of a babe be heard, or counted as a 
vote in a case of discipline ? What is the use of bishops in a 
church, if all are to rule— of judges, if all are judges of fact 
and law ?" Thus showing that the administration of the dis- 
cipline of the church is given into the hands of an eldership 
— given to the ruling eldership out of the hands of the con- 
gregation. Now, if you turn to Matt, chapter 18, and, com- 
mencing with the 15th verse, you will find, "If thy brother 
shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between 
thee and him alone : if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained 
thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, tlien take with thee 
one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses 
every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to 
hear them, tell it unto the church : but if he neglect to hear 
the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and .a pub- 
lican." "Tell it to the bishop," Mr. Campbell would say. 
My friend's church would say, tell it to the ruling elders ; but 
Jesus says, tell it to the church, and the church is composed 
of its members. " If he neglect to hear the church, let him be 
unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." 



Elder (Ray's Fourth (Reply. 101 

And we find it was the church that elected Matthias ; it was 
the church that selected the deacons; it was the church that re- 
ceived and excluded members. The church government 
adopted by the gentleman's church is unauthorized in God's 
Word ; therefore, it is not the Church of Christ, because it is 
not governed by the Word of God. 

I advance now to the fifth negative argument in my line, 
Mis is not the Church of Christy because it introduces im- 
proper materials into the building, Mr. H. T. Anderson states 
that " The disciples baptize men to make them Christians." 
Tliey baptize the unpardoned sinner that he may become a Christian, 
is the doctrine of the gentleman's church. Again, Dr. Lucas 
says : " We are baptized into the death of Christ, where we meet 
the blood, and then we become new creatures" He, then, baptizes 
those who are not made new creatures in Christ ; he baptizes 
those who are not children of God to make them children of 
God, contrary, as we think, to the Word of God. Again : 
The Dr. said, in the Canton debate, " We baptize men that 
they may become Christians, or children of God." This is 
his exact language : We baptize men that they may become Chris- 
tians, or children of God! Mr. Lard, in his " Letter to an 
Inquiring Baptist," which was published in tract form, eighth 
letter, page 4, says: "When we cross the line out of the 
world into the kingdom, we cease to be Jew, cease to be Gen- 
tile ; and when we cease to be these, we cease to be children 
of the Avicked one, and become children of God. But we 
never cease to be Jew and Gentile till we enter Christ, and w T e 
never enter into him till baptized into him. Then, therefore, 
do we cease to be children of Satan, and become children of 
God," — showing that, according to Moses Lard, the Disciples 
profess to baptize the children of Satan, in order to make them 
the children of God. A child of the devil — when he is not a 
child of God— they baptize him that he may become a child 
of God ! Where in God's Word is the authority for baptizing 



102 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

the children of Satan that they may become the children of 
God ? We have testimony upon testimony upon this subject. 
I will read from Mr. Campbell's Christian System, p. 193 : 
" Whatever the act of faith may be, it necessarily becomes 
the line of discrimination between the two states before de- 
scribed. On this side, and on that, mankind are in quite dif- 
ferent states. On the one side, they are pardoned, justified, 
sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved ; on the other, they 
are in a state of condemnation. This act is sometimes called 
immersion, regeneration, conversion ; and that this act may 
appear obvious to all, we shall be at some pains to confirm and 
illustrate it." Thus, showing that on one side of the line 
called immersion, men are irreconciled to God, and are chil- 
dren of the devil, according to Mr. Campbell ; but that on 
the other, when they are reconciled, they hate God no more. 
Mr. Campbell teaches, in his philosophy of religion, that love 
is the fruit of the spirit which is given after baptism. They 
baptize persons when they are not yet reconciled to God, ac- 
cording to their own testimony. Mr. Richardson, page 
78, in his " Eeligious Reformation," makes "love, joy, peace, 
and righteousness" the fruits of the spirit received after bap- 
tism. And, again, Mr. Campbell has taught that in regen- 
eration there is no change of the affections. He applies the 
term regeneration, however, to baptism. Christian Baptist, 
p. 131, he says : " No new faculties are created in the human 
mind, nor are any of the old ones annihilated ; no new pas- 
sions, nor affections are communicated." * * $ "It ap- 
pears, then, that the faculties of the human spirit, and the 
affections of the human mind, are affected no more by regener- 
ation than the height of the human stature, or the corpulency 
of the human body, or the color of the human skin, are affected 
by it ;" showing that in their reformed generation there is no 
change. 

According to the testimony of the Doctor, according to the 



Elder (Ray's Fourth (Reply. 103 

testimony of Mr. Anderson, according to the testimony of* 
Mr. Lard, and according to the testimony of Mr. Campbell, 
the Disciples baptize men who are not Christians, men who 
are not reconciled to God, men whose consciences are corrupt, 
in order that they may become the children of God. Remem- 
ber, dear friends, that there must be preparation. I quote 
Eph. ii. 8-10: "For by grace are ye saved through faith ; and 
that not of yourselves : it is the gift of God : not of works, 
lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, 
created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath be- 
fore ordained that we should walk in them." Created in 
Christ Jesus unto good works. This new creation is by and 
through faith. And, again, in 2d Corinthians v. 17, we have : 
" Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature : old 
things are passed away ; behold, all things are become new." 
Here is this wonderful, this grand, this glorious change from 
death to life — being made a new creature in Christ Jesus. 

Then, again, 1st Peter ii. 5: "Ye also, as lively stones, are 
built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spir- 
itual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." Lively 
stones representing God's children ; and then built up as a 
spiritual house, an holy priesthood to offer up sacrifice to God. 
1st Kings vi. 7 : When the temple was in building it went 
up without the sound of a hammer out of those materials that 
were prepared beforehand. The stone was not placed into the 
building in order to be prepared ; it was first prepared and then 
placed into the building, because it was prepared ; and so in the 
spiritual temple, which was represented and typified by the 
ancient temple, the spiritual stones must be prepared and then 
put into the building — not to prepare them, but because they 
are prepared. My friend's church is not the true church of 
Christ, because it introduces improper materials into the build- 
ing, with the design, that they may be prepared by their in- 
troduction. Again, it is . [Time Expired.] 



DR. LUCAS' FIFTH ADDRESS. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen : I shall refer to a statement or two made by Dr. 
Clark, and then notice the points presented by the gentleman, 
and proceed with my argument. Dr. Clark, in presenting the 
point in regard to the name presents it just this way. He 
does not found his remarks upon a little if, as the gentleman 
has told you, but he says : " it is evident they had the name 
Christian from their Master." And, again, the word kremati- 
zo in our common text, which we translate "were called," sig- 
nifies in the New Testament to appoint, warned, or nominated 
by divine direction." That is what Mr. Clark says upon the 
question. 

The gentleman refers to my denial of that letter again. 
Well, that is too small a matter to spend our time upon. But 
I deny that Mr. Campbell ever asked for it, and I ask him to 
prove it. 

But Christ' preached the gospel in fact, he says, while he was 
here on earth. I ask this audience to examine the divine 
record and see if Christ ever preached that he had died, that 
he had been buried, that he had triumphed over the dead. 
No, Christ never preached those things as having an existence 
in fact. He spoke of them as something yet to come, as 
something yet future, just as every other one who preached 
them did. These things were yet to be accomplished — were 
to be accomplished, and they, did not preach them in fact un- 
til after they existed, and they could not be preached until 
after they were facts — until after they had occurred. 



(Dr. Lucas' Fifth Address. 105 

One other point. The gentleman referred to it again, and 
I omitted to notice it in my former address — and I want to 
refer to it now — in regard to the kingdom, the beginning of 
the kingdom, and so on. He spoke of the twelve apostles 
of the lamb being placed for the foundation. Well, now, the 
position of the gentleman is that the kingdom was established 
in the days of John the Baptist, and while Christ was here 
personally in the world. Well, suppose that we admit for the 
sake of the argument that the kingdom was established then. 
Then 'we have the twelve apostles in the foundation of the 
kingdom established. Well, I want to know what twelve ? 
Was not Judas one of the twelve then ? Matthias certainly 
was elected to fill Judas' place after that. If, then, the foun- 
dation was established by the twelve apostles in the days of 
John, then Judas was one of them ; and now the gentleman 
has to take one of two positions, either that Judas, an uncon- 
verted man, was in the foundation, or,- if converted, that the 
saints of God may fall away, for Judas was lost. He has to give 
up his doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, or he has 
to put Judas in the foundation, though unconverted. One of 
the two he has to take, whether he wants to or not, and he can't 
help it. That is all we have to say on this subject just now. 
But he refers to those cases where Jesus said, "Thy sins 
are forgiven thee. Thy faith hath saved thee." We have 
shown that the kingdom was not then established, and those 
were cases that occurred under the immediate presence of 
Jesus Christ himself, while here upon the earth, and he had a 
right to say and to do just precisely as he pleased. But he 
gave the apostles a commission when he went away that 
was to control and govern them in the establishment of the 
kingdom, and that they might faithfully and successfully 
carry out that commission, he told them to return to Jeru- 
salem, and remain there until they were endued with power 
from on high, that they might be qualified to carry out that 



106 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

commission — the great commission of his kingdom, and of his 
reign — when the kingdom should be established, when they 
should start upon their great commission in the kingdom, 
under this second commission, to preach the gospel to all na- 
tions, to every creature. 

But, "improper material,' , and he talks about the temple. 
Well, I wonder if we, as a people, do not preach for the proper 
preparation of the material ; and I wonder if we do not re- 
quire and demand fully as much as the gentleman. The 
teachings of his church, or of some of its authorities, at 
least, are, that we are all justified by faith alone, and that is 
the preparation. Then, if sinners are justified by faith alone, 
that is the preparation of the material for the building. 
Well, if the gentleman is right, we have our material pre- 
pared just as well as he has, for we demand that the individ- 
ual believes with all his heart in the Lord, that Jesus Christ 
is the Son of God, that he can not be saved unless he does be- 
lieve he is Lord, and if that is the preparation of his material, 
certainly it is the preparation of ours, prepares ours just as 
well as his ; and if we require something more, which the 
Lord has demanded, than simply faith, surely we do not make 
our preparation any the less. And I can not see what point 
the gentleman can make in this case ; for if his material is 
prepared, ours is equally as well prepared, for we demand fully 
as much as he in order to this preparation. But he talks 
about, and refers to a fact, and admits finally — and this is 
the only time that he has made the statement in all the dis- 
cussions we have had — that Mr. Campbell takes the position 
that baptism does not change the affections. He says that 
Mr. Campbell says, that regeneration is baptism, and baptism 
is regeneration, of course, and it does not change the affections 
of the heart. I think the reporter has improved the gentle- 
man very considerably upon this point, at least, that baptism 
does not change the affections of the heart. Well, who sup- 



Dr. Lucas' Fifth Address. 107 

posed that it did ? Who supposed that baptism ever did 
change the affections of the heart, or that it gave a man a 
new faculty ? He has the same faculties after he becomes a 
Christian that he had before, precisely, and the difference in 
the man is, that the man, or his faculties and his powers, are 
now working in a different direction. He has the same facul- 
ties of mind, and the same faculties of soul, after he becomes 
a Christian, that he had before. The difference is, they 
are changed in the direction of their action. They are now 
consecrated to the service of God. It does not change his 
appearance at all. If he was a black man before he became 
a Christian, he is a black man still. If he was a white man 
before, he is a white man still; and^this is all that Mr. 
Campbell meant in the point to which my friend has referred. 
But, then, he must quote Campbell. It is in his lesson, 
and he must say it, and he can not get along without it. I 
tell you, the gentleman would be as dumb as a night hawk if 
you were to take away from him the works of Mr. Campbell 
and Mr. Lard. Why, he wouldn't have anything to say at 
all. His part of the book that we expect to result from this 
debate would be a very small affair, were it not for what he 
borrows from Campbell and Lard, and a few others. But we 
desire to invite your attention now to what he stated w T ith regard 
to Hephzi-bah, as the new name. Now, here in this chapter, 
62d chapter of Isaiah, we have, in the 4th verse, "And thou 
shalt be called Hephzi-bah, ,, and in the last verse, "And thou 
shalt be called Sought out." Now, then, if the name is given 
in the 62d chapter, as in the one place, they are called Heph- 
zi-bah — my beloved, or, the one in whom I delight — when the 
word is properly rendered, " my delight — my delight is in 
her," and now, here, in the closing part of the chapter, last 
verse, is " called Sought out," I want to know of the gentle- 
man, which one of these names is the name, if it is found 
in this chapter. Now, I undertake to say that there is as 



108 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

much authority for calling them " Sought out" as for call- 
ing them "my delight is in her' — just as much in the one 
case as there is in the other ; and, according to the gentle- 
man's position, in the chapter, instead of having one new 
name, we have simply two new names. They are not new, 
after all. " My delight is in her :" that is no new name — 
that is no new name, at all — and so " Sought out" is no new 
name. The new name is not there, but if the name is in 
that chapter, then there are two names, instead of one. 

But, then, we refer again to Amos ix. 12, and also to the 
15th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, where James quotes 
from the prophecy of Amos, and refers it to the Christian dis- 
pensation, where he speaks of the name — " upon whom my 
name is called," and " that are called by my name." 

Now, I undertake to say that James understood the matter 
correctly, when he was referring to these prophecies, in regard 
to the name, to the Christian dispensation, or economy of things, 
and every other apostle understood it precisely the same way ; 
for when James quoted the passage, he referred it to the 
Christian dispensation. If he had been wrong, then the 
other apostles would have filed their objections ; but it is evi- 
dent they all agreed on the question, and James was right in 
referring these prophecies to the Christian dispensation, at 
which time the new name was given. So much for Hephzi- 
bah, for the present. 

Now I proceed with my argument. We had just stated, 
when our time expired, that the disciples of Jesus Christ were 
deliberating upon one of the most important questions that 
had ever disturbed the church of God, That question was : 
May the Gentiles become Christians and be saved, without be- 
ing circumcised, and without becoming Jews by proselytism ? 
In order to prove that the Gentiles may be saved without be- 
ing circumcised, and keeping the law of Moses, James quotes 
Amos ix. 12, and "heathen" in Amos, and "Gentiles" in Acts, 



(Dr. Lucas' Fifth Address. 109 

mean the same people. Now T , if James had not understood 
the prophecy of Amos to apply to the church of Christ in the 
gospel day, he could not have used this scripture in defense of 
his position, and had the other apostles believed that this pro- 
phecy had a literal meaning, and is yet to be fulfilled in some 
far distant day, they surely would have made their objections to 
James' application of it. But we hear of no objection, heuce 
we must conclude that they were all of one mind and one heart 
upon this subject. And, further, we see that according to this 
the Lord's people were to be called by his name in the gospel 
dispensation — "to be called by my name" — as in Amos, and 
"upon whom my name is called," as in the Acts, meaning the 
same thing. Now, I ask, how is it that the Lord's people 
were called by his name ? Are they so called now ? Or if they 
have been, what is meant by being called by his name ? 

In answer to this question, and in further illustration of 
the position now assumed, I will call your attention to the 
following considerations : The Greek verb epikaloumai is both 
in the passive and middle voice, and signifies both passive and 
active. In the New Testament, where its passive voice occurs, 
it uniformly signifies surname or called ; when its middle voice 
occurs it as uniformly signifies to invoke, call upon, or appeal 
to. I will bring to view the texts in the New Testament where 
the passive of this verb is used and commonly translated sur- 
name. Mat. x. 3: "James, the son of Alphseus, and Leb- 
baeus whose surname was Thaddseus, Luke xxii. 36 : "Then 
entered Satan into Judas, surnamed Iscariot." Acts i. 23 : 
"and they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was 
surnamed Justus." Acts iv. 36 : "And Joses, who by the 
apostles was surnamed Barnabas." Acts x. 5 : "And now send 
men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter," 
And the same phrase occurs in the 18th and 32d verses ; also 
in chapter xi. 13. And, again, Acts xii. 12: "He came 
to the house of Mary, the mother of John, whose surname 



110 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

was Mark." The same occurs in the 25th verse ; also Acts 
xv. 22: "Judas, surnamed Barsabas." James says in his 
Epistles, 2d chapter, 7th verse : "Do they not blaspheme that 
worthy name by which you are called — or surname — for it is 
the same word. "Undoubtedly this name blasphemed was 
Christ or Christian. Now notice the proof. Amos says in 
chaper ix. 12: "And of all the heathen which are called by 
my name." James quotes this passage in Acts xv. 17 : 
"And all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called." Thus 
it is demonstrable, my brethren, that the phrase "to be called 
by my name" is the same as "upon whom my name is called." 
This phraseology is of frequent occurrence in the Old Testa- 
ment, and signifies their surnames attached to their proper 
names. Israel was one of those names, for in this name is El, 
the Hebrew name for God. This was the name given by the 
divine one to Jacob, and by this name were all his children 
called-, "The children of Israel" — thus the phrase the Gen- 
tiles who were "called by my name," or on "whom thy name 
is called" — is the same as that by which you are called, or sur- 
name, which we think all must see and agree to be Christian, 
after Christ, Thus to be called by the Lord's name, according 
to Amos ix. 12, is to be called Christian, In order to 
make this matter plainer, if possible, we ask you to examine 
Daniel ix, 19: "O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, 
hearken and do ; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God : 
for thy city and thy people are called by thy name," Now, 
on what other principle was this true except the one that has 
already been named. El, one of the Hebrew names for God 
is embodied in the word Israel. Hence, whenever the name 
Israel was pronounced, the name of God was pronounced. 
When God gave Jacob this name, he placed his own name up- 
on him. Well, then, might the prophets say: "Thy people 
are called by thy name." Here the name of Christ is embos- 
omed in the name Christian, and, hence, whenever the name is 



(Dr. Lucas' Fifth Address. m 

pronounced the name of Christ is spoken. Surely the apostle 
had reference to this fact when he said : "If you be reproached 
for the name of Christ, happy are you." See 1st Peter iv. 14 ; 
according to the same passage, "to suffer as a Christian, or 
to suffer for the name of Christ, you are happy. But let 
none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief : or as an evil 
doer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. Yea, if any 
man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him 
glorify God in this name" We quote here the version as given 
by the Baptist Union, their translation, and their translation 
of this passage is as we have quoted : "if any man suffer as a 
Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in 
this name" — in this name Christian, Thus are the phrases : 
"in the name of Christ," and "as a Christian" used inter- 
changeably — as both mean the same thing. The same fact is 
referred to by the apostle, when he says: "Do not rich men 
oppress you, and draw you before their judgment seats. Do 
they not blaspheme that worthy name by which you are 
called ?" See James ii, 6, 7, This worthy name was surely the 
name of Christ, or Christians, by which they were called. 
How appropriate, then, was the response of the king when he 
had heard the argument of Paul in behalf of Christianity : 
"Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian," See Acts 
xxvi, 28, How many are just in the king's condition, almost 
ready to abandon the world and everything sectarian, and to 
receive the Christian faith, and to adopt the Christian rule of 
life, and to take upon themselves the Lord's worthy name by 
which the disciples of Christ were called. But, alas, he was 
only almost persuaded. 

But, further, the prophet Isaiah, filled with the spirit of 
inspiration, looked forward to the gospel day, and said : 
" You shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen ; for 
the Lord shall slay thee and call His servants by another 
name." Again • " Thou shalt be called by a new name, 



112 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

which the mouth of the Lord shall name." See Isaiah lxii. 
15, and, again, Isaiah lxii. 2. Now, I ask, what is this new 
name ? Dr. Clark says this new name is " Christian ;" so says 
Dr. Davies. Now, if these scholars are correct, then the name 
Christian is given by the mouth of the Lord. If this new 
name is not Christian, then this prophecy has never been ful- 
filled, for this is the only new name by which the people of 
God are called in the New Testament. They are called 
saints, because of the purity of their hearts and lives ; but 
that is an Old Testament name. They are called brethren, 
but this is no new name. David said, " Behold, how good 
and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." 
— Psalms cxxxiii. 1. They are called disciples, but this 
name was known to the Old Testament saints ; this name 
was in existence during that dispensation, and was once ap^ 
plied to the students of philosophy. Indeed, I can call to 
mind no new name by which the followers of Christ were 
called, save the name " Christian." It was a new name — em- 
phatically a new name — a name unknown to the Jews and 
Gentiles till Paul and Barnabas had assembled with the 
church in Antioch a whole year, and had taught much people. 
Of course, it was while these divinely authorized teachers 
were fully instructing the people in the holy will of God, that 
the disciples were called Christians first, and then was fulfilled 
the word of the Lord, which said, you shall be called by a 
new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name ; and 
again, in Revelations iii. 8, we have this name referred to 
again, and in Ephesians iii. 15, we have it here referred to as 
the name by which the whole family, both in heaven and on 
earth, is named — the family name, the name given to the 
family instituted by the divine authority after the ascen- 
sion of our adorable Lord, when he had become the King of 
kings and Lord of lords — when he had been coronated at the 
right hand of the Majesty on High, and had sent forth the 



(Dr. Lucas' Fifth Address. 113 

Spirit upon the apostles, according to his promise, which was 
to guide them into all truth — the name by which that family, 
then instituted, was called, when Jew and Gentile were 
brought together into this one family, and when all differences 
between Jew and GentPe were taken aw T ay, and when they 
were made one in Christ Jesus the Lord, the foundation and 
head of the church. 

But, we call your attention to our sixth argument. We 
state that we have the scriptural officers of the church. The 
gentleman has been running entirely too fast. If he would 
just wait and examine the arguments that we submit, and pay 
his respects to the proofs that we offer, I think, at least, that 
the discussion, when it shall have become a book, published 
and read by the people, that it would read at least a little 
better. But, then, he must exercise his own will and pleasure 
in regard to this matter. We have the scriptural officers of 
the church : First, Evangelists ; second, elders, or bishops ; 
and third, deacons. I presume these officers he will not deny 
— he will not deny that they are scriptural. He will not deny 
that they are the officers presented in the Scriptures and re- 
cognized now as the officers of the church, or kingdom of the 
living God on earth. 

We have not time to discuss this question, presuming that 
so far as these official characters are concerned, that they will 
be recognized. We simply say, however, that the Scripture 
by which these official characters are sustained, are found in 
Acts xx. 17, 18; and 1st Peter v. 2; and Titus i. 5-7; 
and 1st Timothy v. 17, and Philippians i. 1. [Time Ex- 
pired.] 



ELDER RAY'S FIFTH REPLY. 



Mr. President, Brethren Moderators, and Eespected 
Audience : Your attention is invited to the reply. He said 
we have Christ preached before his death, but he did not 
preach the gospel in fact I still affirm that the gospel was 
preached in fact, and in power, and that to the salvation of 
men. His death upon the cross had not yet occurred, but 
the efficacy of that atoning blood extended as much back to 
Abel's day as it extends to us now. He was as a lamb slain 
from the foundation of the world. My friend's doctrine, that 
he advocates here, borders on Unitarianism ; it seems to me that 
it is entirely unauthorized from the Word of God. He talks 
about his being coronated on the day of Pentecost, and yet he 
did not get his doctrine from Mr. Campbell ! Where in the 
Bible do you find anything about it. It is not there. When 
he was born in the manger, he was the King of heaven and 
earth, and, although as to his flesh, but a little babe, his 
omnipotent power supported the universe of God. I under- 
stand that he is in his divinity, the everlasting Father, the 
Prince of Peace, and the government is upon his shoulders. 
The Dr. has failed to notice the argument that I made — that 
when he gave the commission, the whole power of heaven and 
earth was in his hands — and yet he tells you he was not a King ! 
Enough on this point. 

But who are the twelve apostles mentioned here, Rev. xxi. 
14 ? He thinks that he has sprung a difficulty in regard to 
the twelve foundation stones, because Judas was in ; and if 
Judas was in the foundation, we will have an apostate. Well, 






Elder (Ray's Fifth (Reply. 115 

I don't think there is any difficulty in regard to the question. 
I learn, Mat. xix. 28, that the Saviour said that " Ye also 
shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of 
Israel." I do not understand him as having reference literally 
there to Judas, because, in his mind, he already embraced 
Matthias, who was the true apostle ; and this is sustained by 
a fact, that we read in the 1st chapter of Acts, commencing 
with the 21st verse, " Wherefore of these men which have 
companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in 
and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto 
that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be or- 
dained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." Thus 
showing that it was to fill the office vacated by Judas. He 
only fell from his office — not from grace. He must have com- 
panied with the apostles all the time, beginning from the bap- 
tism of John ; consequently, it is probable when Jesus said, 
" Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones," he referred to the 
true apostle, Matthias, who was present, according to this 
statement. And, then, notice it is said, " And they prayed, 
and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, 
shew whether of these two thou hast chosen y — showing that 
the Lord had already chosen him, and that the disciples were 
only to discover that choice that God himself had made — 
"that he might take part of this ministry and apostleship, 
from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to 
his own place. And they gave forth their lots ; and the lot 
fell upon Matthias." 

Will he answer this question : Was Judas a child of God 
at any time of his life ? Another difficulty for you. You 
don't answer questions very freely. It will go to record that 
he fails to answer. Was Judas a true child of God ? If you 
say so, I will then bring the difficulties upon you. He won't 
say it, I reckon. 

But, then, again : The Dr. says that some of the Baptist 



116 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

authors say, " faith alone, and we have as much preparation 
as they F* If he understands the Baptist authorities, he knows 
that they say that " men are justified by grace through 
faith ;" that they speak of that faith that has been preceded 
by repentance ; for repentance is essential to faith with the 
heart, a preparation that is a little different from his, as we 
will show when we come to that point. 

But he says the reporter seems to have improved your un- 
worthy servant somewhat. Well, it has had a very wonderful 
effect, it seems to me, on the Dr., and so, it seems, we are both 
benefitted by having a reporter. 

" But, if I failed to quote Mr. Campbell and others, my 
part of the book would be very small." Well, brethren, if 
Mr. Campbell and Mr. Lard, and those associated with them, 
had not lived, his church would never have been heard of at 
all ; and if we didn't have them to quote from, we wouldn't 
find out a solitary thing about his church. We are discussing 
the church now that he at this time is identified with ; and all 
the time he is talking about Pentecost — talking about what took 
place in the times of the apostles — he makes no proof concerning 
his church. A Universalist might get up and investigate and 
discuss all thesQ great theories back there, and then conclude, 
" Now, the Universalists' is the true church, because we hold 
so and so !" I am not comparing the gentleman's doctrine to 
Universalism, only by way of illustrating the awkwardness of 
the argument. Suppose that during the time of our Southern 
Confederacy — for I was in it, you know — suppose at that 
time some individual should have concluded that the Confed- 
eracy was the ancient Eoman government, and had delivered 
a speech on the commencement of the Roman government. 
Now, suppose he had said, "My theory of the commencement 
of the Eoman government is right ; therefore, the Southern 
Confederacy is identical with the Eoman government, and is a 
part of the Eoman government itself!" That is just about as 



Elder (Ray's Fifth (Reply. 117 

good an argument as the Dr. has made. Why dont you 
bring your "therefore" to bear on your church? The true 
church was set up on the day of Pentecost; therefore, the 
church set up by Alexander Campbell, in 1827, is the true 
church of Christ ! I would like a few conclusions from your 
arguments. It seems to me they are very far off from your 
church characteristics. 

But, again, it is the name Christian, the name that the mouth 
of the Lord hath named. He is troubled a little about Hephzi- 
bah. Whether it was Hephzi-bah, or some other name, he can 
take his choice — which one he pleases, But it certainly was 
not Christian, The new name that God was to call the people 
at that future time is Hephzi-bah, and if he says it is not, then 
he contradicts God Almighty ; and if that is the name — the 
new name — his church has got, I wish all the people to call it 
Hepbzi-bah from this time forward. Certainly, that is the 
name, and if he don't intend to call his church that, why did 
he introduce such an argument ? Hephzi-bah is the name. 

" They blaspheme the worthy name by which you are call- 
ed." Do you know what the name of the Saviour is, Dr. 
Lucas? The angel spake unto Mary (Luke i. 31): "Thou 
shalt call his name Jesus" If you are called by* the name of 
the Saviour you must be called by the name of Jesus or Jes- 
uits — and I believe there is a denomination by that name. 
Suppose I am discussing with a Romish Jesuit, and he says : 
"I contend that we are the visible church of Christ, because 
we have got the right name. We are named after Jesus — we 
are Jesuits !" 

Dear friends, it seems to me that this argument is unworthy 
of this occasion. I can not help but feel so. I ask in what 
chapter and verse in God's Word he finds "Christian" in con- 
nection with church ? He has in his proposition "Christian 
Church." All denominations of professed Christians use the 
name Christian, and if his argument proves anything, it proves 



118 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

that all denominations are the true church, because they use 
it in every church — every one. But it does not prove they 
are the true church, and he dare not affirm it ; and consequent- 
ly his whole argument is lost, and lost forever, unless he can 
find the name ' 'Christian Church" given by divine authority. 

I ask him the question again : Can an individual out of the 
hingdom of Christ be a child of God f But he will not answer. 
In the Blandinville debate he said that "out of the kingdom 
there is no remission of sins." In this discussion he says there 
are saints, witnesses of God all along down through the dark 
ages of the world. I understand him that way, and this be- 
ing so, they are in the kingdom, and therefore the kingdom 
has stood, according to Dr. Lucas. That being so, he has said 
if there is a true succession, his church fails, because he knows 
that it has no succession. It started out of a movement of 
which Alexander Campbell was the recognized head ; and it 
started in America, and became a church about 1827. 

He says : "We have the scriptural officers." Well, I deny 
that, and as he has not brought out his proof I will wait for 
him to develop his line of argument a little further upon this 
subject. ■ 

I wish to call your attention again to the fact that the gen- 
tleman's church, which he calls the Christian Church, is not 
the church of Christ, because it introduces improper material 
into the organization. He don't deny that they introduce 
those who are irreconciled in order to reconcile them ; chil- 
dren of Satan in order to make them children of God. That 
is the point I made against his church. And you remember 
it was said in John iv. 1, that the Pharisees had heard "that 
James made and baptized more disciples than John, though 
he baptized not himself, but his disciples. He made disciples, 
and then baptized them. The gentleman's church baptizes 
men to make them disciples. There is where it is wrong, and 
fearfully wrong. I do not affirm that every one that goes in 



Elder Ray's Fifth Reply. 119 

among them is destitute of discipleship, but I am taking up 
the theory — the doctrine, and the practices of his church. 

But then, again, 1st John, iv. 7, 8, shows that persons must 
be children of God before they are baptized. "Beloved, let 
us love one another : for love is of God : and every one that 
.loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth 
not, knoweth not God ; for God is love." I would like for the 
Doctor to notice some of my questions that I ask, and I ask 
them all kindly. I wish to know his views. I would like for 
him to say yes or no. He can do as he pleases, and answer in 
his own way and time. I wish to know whether or not his 
church will baptize a man before he loves God f — whether they 
profess to do it ? — whether he would do so ? John says : who- 
soever loveth, is born of God." If he loves, he is bom of God; 
and if he loves God before baptism, he is bom of God before 
baptism ; and he is not only a son of God, but he knows God 
— has a spiritual knowledge of God. There is no escape from 
this. 

And then the 3d chapter and 14th verse of the same book, 1st 
Epistle of John, we have this: "We know we have passed 
from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that 
loveth not his brother abideth in death." Then, when we love 
God we have passed out of a state of death into life, or, are 
children of God ; we know that we have passed from death 
to life, not because we have joined the church — not because 
we have been baptized — not because we have eaten of the sup- 
per, but we know it because we love the brethren. And this 
love of the brethren must come before one is qualified for bap- 
tism, or for admission into the Church of Christ, 

I affirm, as my sixth negative argument, that the gentle- 
man's church with which he stands identified is not the 
church of Christ, because it inverts the order of the command- 
ment of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. They do not obey 
that injunction of the apostle found in 1st Cor. xi. 2, where 



120 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

Paul says : "I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in 
all things, and keep the ordinances, as I have delivered tliem to 
you." They do not keep the ordinances as they are delivered. 
Dr. Lucas said of the sinner, that "faith changes his heart, 
repentance his life, and baptism his state." Mr. Franklin pre- 
sents the same order, and all their writers, from Campbell , 
down, put it, faith, repentance, and baptism. Well, I wish 
your attention to the Scriptures in regard to the order. 
Jesus preached, Mark i. 15, saying, "Repent ye, and believe 
the gospel." I suppose Jesus understood himself, and under 
stood how to preach ; but I guess you will not find any of the 
Disciples preaching that way. They don't think it reasonable 
to preach like Jesus did — in that order. " But," says one, 
" how are you going to repent before faith? He that comes 
to God must believe that He is" — as found in Heb. xi. 6 — 
" and that He is a re warder of them that diligently seek him." 
Now, I grant, in coming to God, he must believe that He is. 
Dear friends, we must distinguish between believing that God 
is, and believing in Christ, in the sense of trust. The devils be- 
lieve that God is ; wicked men, that hate God, and blaspheme 
His holy name, believe that God is, and that Christ is His 
Son, but they do not believe in him, they do not love him or 
believe in him with the heart. But when we come to under- 
stand the meaning of the word faith — the Greek word pistis 
— used in the New Testament, it means trust ; faith with the 
heart includes trust, the faith of trust in Christ follows re- 
pentance unto life ; and they are inseparable, the one from the 
other — I say, faith with the heart is inseparable from repent- 
ance which is wrought by a godly sorrow. 

Well, now, with this explanation, we pass to the statement 
of the Saviour. He says, Mat. xxi. 32 : " John came unto 
you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not : 
but the publicans and the harlots believed him : and ye, when 
ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe 



Elder (Ray's Fifth (Reply. 121 

him." Repentance in order to faith. The gentleman says that 
metamelomai can not be used here in the sense of repentance to 
life. What kind of repentance was it, then ? In this passage 
it means more than regret. It is true, it is not the same word 
ordinarily used in the Bible to indicate repentance unto life ; 
but it is here used in such a situation that it can certainly 
mean nothing else. And if it does not mean that, will the 
Dr. please tell us what it does mean ? "Ye repented not 
afterward, that ye might believe him. ,, 

Again, Paul, Acts xx. 21, speaking of his own labors 
among the Ephesians, he said : "Testifying both to the Jews, 
and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith 
toward our Lord Jesus Christ." The gentleman's church don't 
preach that way. But every time both requirements, repent- 
ance and faith, are mentioned in the Bible, I will say from the 
first word in Genesis to the last line in Revelations — every 
time both requirements are mentioned, repentance is always 
first ; and it is not so by accident. The human soul is so consti- 
tuted that a man hating God can not believe and trust in him 
while he hates him. But there comes repentance — and there 
can be no repentance without a change — the very word metanoed 
denotes a change in the human affections. When one is hating 
another, he can not say, "I believe in him," till that repent- 
ance comes. I give an illustration. Now, some of us 
were in Tennessee during the reign of a certain Governor 
there, but we did not all believe in him. The first letters of 
his name were W. G. — I believe you have heard of him — 
Brownlow. Some of us didn't fully believe in him ; and while 
we knew that he was Governor, and that he was the rewarder 
of men that diligently sought him politically, still we didn't 
believe in him, and, I tell you, they could not have believed in 
him until there was a change in their affections toward him, 
and that change involved repentance toward that Governor. 
This is the philosophy of the human soul. When we consider 



122 (Disciples' Church CI arms. 

that we are hating God, we never can believe in him, or trust 
him until that hate is removed ; and in the removal of that 
hatred is repentance. There is no escape from it. 

I affirm still further that the gentleman's church is not the 
true church, because it does not observe the supper in the 
order which God requires ; which is repentance, faith, burial, 
and baptism, and the Lord's Supper at the Lord's table in his 
kingdom. The gentleman's church practices what is ordinarily 
called "open communion," with those that they recognize as 
children of Satan — those who are not immersed ; because they 
say those who are not immersed, are not children of God. 
Here is what Mr. Lard says, p. 49 of Lard's Quarterly, for 
1863: "Hence, when I claim the right to forbid the unimmersed 
to commune, my claim has this extent only : that as a teacher 
of the truth, I must tell him he has not the right to com- 
mune. This done, and I can proceed no further. If he still 
insists that he has the right to commune, and communes, I 
am clear. But in this case I would hand him neither the loaf, 
nor the cup." Mr, Lard continues: "A Christian man is a 
member of the body of Christ and my brother, and I would 
commune with him in a loving spirit, though I met him in the 
vilest sinks of Rome. Hell can rear no barriers so high, nor 
sin dig ditches so deep and foul, as to shut out from my fel- 
lowship him whom Christ has washed in his own blood. And 
though I admired a man with my whole strength, and loved 
him as my own flesh, and even wept over his deficiencies as 
feelingly as a mother weeps over the deformity of her babe, 
yet would I not 'eat' with him, unless he was of the. ' one 
body.' But when I concede that there are Christians among 
the parties of the day, let me not be accused of concealment. 
I recognize no human- being as a Christian who has not been 
immersed. Men may call this "by what name they see fit, it 
moves me not." Mr. Lard says that Luther was not a 
Christian, and Calvin was never a Christian, and so with all 



Elder fcay's Fifth (Reply. 123 

the unimmersed Pedobaptists, but he thinks they will be 
saved in heaven somehow. That is very singular, but then 
we have very singular notions to deal with. Again, page 51 : 
"Near the commencement of the present controversy, a ques- 
tion was raised as to the practice of our churches in the 
premises. A word on this is demanded. Our churches in 
the West, I am sorry to say, without an exception known to 
me, permit the unimmersed to communion." Here is proof 
that the gentleman's church does not keep the ordinances as 
they were delivered, and practices — contrary to the testimony 
of Alexander Campbell, contrary to the testimony of Mr. 
Lard, contrary to the testimony of God's Word — what they 
call open communion. Mr. Lard says, p. 52 of the same 
Quarterly: " In the outset of the current reformation, our 
motto was : And thus, saith the Lord, for every article of our 
faith, a precept, or a precedent for all we do. In the light of 
this cherished postulate, w T hat defense can we plead for our 
act, when we set down to commune with the unimmersed," 
What can we plead, says Mr, Lard? what apology can we 
offer, when, contrary to the teaching of God's Word, we set 
down with the unbaptized, to commune with those that you 
do not recognize as being the children of God. In Luke 
xxii. 29, 30: "I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father 
hath appointed unto me ; That ye may eat and drink at my 
table in my kingdom," and so on ; showing that the Lord's 
table is to be found in the Lord's kingdom alone — nowhere 
else; "Eat and drink at my table in my kingdom." And 
thus it is seen that the church that stands out before the 
world changing, inverting and perverting the order of God's 
commandments, can not be that identical kingdom that Christ 
established — that church that has stood to the present time. 
[Time Expired,] 



^hivb ®venxn$. 



DR. LUCAS' SIXTH ADDRESS. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen : We have assembled again for the purpose of 
continuing our investigation of the question we have had up 
before you now for two nights past. I propose, before I ad- 
vance with my argument, to notice a few points presented by 
my friend in his closing speech of last evening. He referred 
again to the preaching of the gospel in fact ; he affirmed that 
the gospel in fact was preached before ever Jesus died, 
before he was buried, and before he rose from the dead. 

I feel very confident that this audience will see that it is 
impossible to preach the gospel in fact, the gospel embracing 
these facts, until after they have become facts, until Jesus 
has actually died, been buried, and has triumphed over the 
dark empire of death. But my friend states in answer to the 
difficulty presented with reference to the twelve apostles who 
constituted the foundation quoted by him from Eevelations, 
that Matthias was embraced at the time in the mind of Jesus, 
the Christ, and, consequently, Matthias was one of the twelve 
apostles who entered into that foundation. Now, this propo- 
sition I most positively deny, and call for the proof. None of 
the apostles entered into that foundation, even according to 
the position taken by my friend, until they were called. They 



(Dr. Lucas 2 Sixth Address. 125 

were not called until after John — according to his statement 
last night — until after John was imprisoned. They were not 
called until after that time, and, as a matter of course, en- 
tered not into the foundation until after they w T ere called. 
But the kingdom was not given to the apostles until Jesus 
went away. He went away forty days after his resurrection, 
and ten days before the first Pentecost, after his ascension. 
This is bringing the beginning of the kingdom down very 
close to the first Pentecost, after the resurrection of the Lord. 
But we state, by these admissions, that we have succeeded in 
getting the gentleman much nearer Pentecost than when we 
first commenced our investigation. He said, at first, the 
kingdom was established in the days of John, and that John 
actually preached the existence of the kingdom already estab- 
lished, and now we have it admitted that not until after the 
apostles were called did Jesus give the kingdom to them, 
neither then, until he went away. They were not called 
until after John was in prison ; consequently the kingdom 
could not actually be preached as existing prior to that time. 
But Matthias was not called until after Jesus had ascended to 
the Father, consequently could not be embraced in the foun- 
dation, according to the gentleman's position: But this state- 
ment, that Jesus, embraced in his mind Matthias, was the po- 
sition taken by my friend, in order to avoid one of two diffi- 
culties that were presented to him. The first of which was, 
that in order to have his twelve apostles embraced within the 
period that he announces the kingdom as visibly existing, that 
Judas must be embraced in that foundation ; that Judas must 
be part of it, and if Judas was a part of the foundation, then 
there is another difficulty that presents itself to the mind. 
As Judas fell from his position, then the idea that there is a 
possibility of falling from grace forces itself upon the mind, 
and one of these two positions, or rather, we might say, both 
of them the gentleman from his position is forced to take. 



128 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

But with regard to Matthias again, we simply say that we 
deny his statement and call for the proof. 

But my friend inquired last night, where were the " where- 
fores," why did I not present a few " therefores." Well, I 
wish to refer to a point or two, not because the matter is 
in strict accordance with my own ideas in a discussion of the 
kind, but simply because the gentleman himself has intro- 
duced it. You recollect the last evening, in order to destroy 
in your minds the force of my position with reference to the 
name now contended for he stated, suppose I call a goat a 
sheep, will that make it a sheep, and therefore my propo- 
sition affirms falsely. There is one therefore for you. But, 
again, he told us on last evening that he was a member, or 
was connected with the Southern Confederacy, therefore I 
suppose my proposition affirms falsely, because he was in the 
Southern Confederacy, Now, that is almost all the connection 
that I can see that such a reference has to the discussion of 
the proposition that we have before us. I can not see what 
his connection with the Southern Confederacy can have with 
settling a Bible question in the hearing of this audience, but 
probably he thought that it might do him some good as an 
argument, and he -would like to obtain favor with somebody, 
in some way, and that was the best plan. 

But my friend, in a former discussion, when we took the po- 
sition that- the name Christian was derived from Christ, said 
that the gentleman is in a difficulty upon that question. He 
said the name of Christ is nothing more than an official title, 
an official name, a name that has reference to an office. That 
is the position he took in both our former discussions, and the 
true name he said is Jesus, and, therefore, we should, if we 
derive the name of the church from the name of the one we 
serve, we should 'derive it from the name Jesus, and hence, 
he spoke of Jesuits, and so on, and you will recollect his re- 
marks upon that subject. He did not introduce this difficulty 



(Dr. Lucas' Sixth Address. 127 

last night, but I simply refer to the former discussion, be- 
cause he has been in the habit of referring to it time and 
again. Well, we presented this answer for the consideration 
of those that we addressed on the former occasion, that his 
argument amounted to nothing at all, or his position upon 
this subject, simply from the very fact that the name that he 
offers is Jesus, and as clearly indicative of an official character 
and position as the name Christ. He is called Jesus, why ? 
because he shall save his people from their sins ; because of 
the fact that he is a Saviour, and Jesus, therefore, is as in- 
dicative of an official character as clearly as the name Christ, 
and, consequently, his objection to our position, amounts to 
simply nothing at all. 

He then introduces the succession again. Well, the gentle- 
man dies hard ; he dies very hard upon that question ; he 
hates to give it up. Having based nearly all the claim of his 
church in the former discussion upon the subject of succession, 
he now is forced through his own authorities to give it up, 
and to admit that it is not necessary to establish succession in 
order to prove the identity of the church. He is forced to 
admit this, by admitting what Benedict says. He dies hard. 
He clings to succession, however, with quite a grasp ; hence, in 
every speech, the subject of succession must be introduced. I 
regard this question, so far as our discussion is concerned, as 
settled. I say that it is not necessary in order to establish 
the identity of the church. He has admitted it, and, there- 
fore, it is out of this discussion, unless he takes back what he 
has said. Bu*t he introduces the word disciples. again, and said 
that Mr. Campbell says that disciples are made by baptizing. 
The gentleman is just a little mistaken upon that subject. 
Mr. Campbell says that it embraces the instruction in regard 
to the rudimentary, or elementary principles of the gospel, 
and that this teaching in the rudimentary principles of the 
gospel and baptism, these together introduce the individual 



128 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

into the school of Christ, where he is recognized fully and 
clearly as a disciple of Christ. That it is not baptism, nor is 
it the first teaching as presented in the commission, but that 
it embraces the first necessary instruction and the baptism 
both together." 

That is the position taken by Mr. Campbell upon this sub- 
ject, as may be found in his discussion with Nathan L. Rice. 
" But he that loves God is born of God." Well, we simply 
refer your minds to the statement of John, where the quota- 
tion is made, where this language is employed. John there 
shows what he means by the love of God. " This is the love 
of God, that ye keep His commandments," and that love that 
embraces obedience to the command of God. To such love as 
that we have no objection. But he inverts the order of God's 
commandments. 

We shall not discuss this question now, but it will be dis- 
cussed when we come to the proposition that my friend pro- 
poses to affirm as true ; then it will be discussed fully, and, 
we feel confident, to the satisfaction of the gentleman, or 
rather to his dissatisfaction ; for we are very certain that we 
shall be enabled to show the fallacy of his position on this 
subject. 

But he quotes from Hebrews xi. 6, " He that cometh to 
God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them 
that diligently seek him." Well, I would ask the question, if 
those who believe with all their hearts that God is, that God 
exists, and that he is a rewarder of all them that diligently 
seek Him, if in this faith they do not embrace the plan by 
which we are to seek Him and enjoy His favor, and if this 
kind of faith is not a pretty fair faith, even from his orthodox 
and evangelical standpoint ? 

But now, with these remarks, we proceed with our argu- 
ment. We had up before you the official character of the 
church on last evening, and we presented the evangelists, 



(Dr. Lucas' Sixth Address. 129 

elders and deacons. We refer your minds to a number of 
passages, which you may read at your leisure, namely : 1st 
Thessalonians v. 12 ; 1st Timothy v. 17 ; Hebrews xiii. 7-11 ; 
Acts xiv. 20-23. And then, again, in the 17th chapter, there 
is also a reference to the same subject ; and while w T e have not 
the time to discuss at any length these official characters, we 
are satisfied, whatever may be the position of my friend with 
regard to church government, or his position with regard to 
our government, as he has expressed it, these official charac- 
ters, he admits, are presented in the divine volume, and we 
state that evangelists, from the very meaning of the word 
itself, that their work is clearly indicated that they are to go 
out and bear the good news to the world, present the gospel, 
and gather sinners into the fold of Christ, and that elders, or 
bishops, are to take the oversight of those who are thus gath- 
ered in— while we understand that deacons are to attend to 
the secular affairs of the church. 

We call your attention, seventhly, to the following argu- 
ment : We argue that our proposition is true, and that we 
are identical with the primitive saints in the fact that we have 
the scriptural ordinances of the church, or we have them as 
delivered to the apostles and primitive saints by inspiration 
itself; that w T e are identical, therefore, with them upon this 
subject. First, you take the subject of baptism. We are 
with the primitive saints in regard to that subject — first, be- 
cause we accept none as proper subjects of baptism who do 
not believe, and not only so believe, but who do not believe 
with all their hearts, and nothing short of this is that faith 
that we require in order to admission to the ordinance, and, 
consequently, every time you hear the confession taken by 
those of my brethren, that confession is, " Do you believe 
with all your heart that Jesus is the Son of God, and the only 
Saviour of sinners ?" They are called upon then to believe 
w T ith all their hearts, and this was the demand made in prirai- 



130 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

tive times ; consequently, we say, we are identical with the 
primitive saints in regard to baptism, and, consequently, we 
are right in regard to the confession. We say, in the language 
of the apostles and the primitive saints, " Buried with him by 
baptism into death." Thus, we present baptism as a burial 
with the Lord ; that is, the immersion of the proper subject 
in the name of the Father, and of the Son,' and of the Holy 
Spirit. This was the practice of the primitive saints : this is 
our practice ; consequently, we are perfectly identical with 
the primitive saints. 

Thirdly, we are right. We are with the primitive saints in 
regard to the design of this institution ; but we do not propose 
to discuss at this point the design of the institution of bap- 
tism, as this question will come up under the discussion of an- 
other proposition. But, secondly, we call your attention to 
the Lord's Supper. Here, again, I affirm that we occupy the 
scriptural ground so far as the time when this institution 
should be observed — namely, upon the first day of the week. 
But you inquire what first day of the week ? I answer upon 
the first day of the week was the time when this institution w as 
to be observed. And many of those calling themselves Bap- 
tists, acknowledge the legitimacy of our plea and of our po- 
sition upon this subject, and observe upon the first day of the 
week the Lord's Supper, commemorating his death and his 
sufferings. They attend to this institution on the first day of 
. the week, as do those of my brethren ; and this, I am satisfied, 
my friend w r ill not deny. But, when we come to examine 
1st Corinthians and the 11th chapter, we have this reference 
made to the rule by which we are to be governed, the law by 
which we are to be controlled: " Let a man examine himself 
and so eat." The responsibility here is thrown upon the in- 
dividual who would approach the Lord's table, "for if a man 
eat unworthily he eateth and drinketh condemnation to his 
own soul." The responsibility is placed upon the individual 



(Dr. Lucas' Sixth Address. 131 

that approaches the Lord's table. " Let a man examine him- 
self and so let him eat." The primitive saints did not invite 
this one, and reject that one, that claimed to be a servant of 
the Lord Most High. They placed upon the people the re- 
sponsibility of advancing to the table and partaking — Let a 
man examine himself, and so let him partake of the emblems 
of the shed blood and of the body of Jesus, the Christ, the 
Son of God. Let a man examine himself and so let him eat. 
This is the law, then, by which we are governed, and is the law 
presented in the divine volume upon this subject. 

But we present to your minds an argument eighthly, that 
we occupy the Bible ground in regard to the theory and plan 
of conversion. First, on the subject of faith, so far as the 
production of faith is concerned, we occupy the Bible ground. 
You then inquire, how does faith come? How is faith pro- 
duced in the human heart. We answer that question by call- 
ing your attention to the positive testimony of the inspired 
apostles of Jesus, the Christ, in the 10th chapter of Eomans, 
where we have in the 13th verse these words: " For who- 
soever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, 
How shall they call on him in whom they have not be- 
lieved ? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have 
not heard ? and how shall they hear without a preacher ?" Now, 
from these facts Paul draws a deduction : "He says faith 
comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Faith 
comes by hearing the Word of God. This is the deduction 
Paul draws from these premises. But, now, see how it agrees 
with the testimony of the apostle Peter, as found in the 15th 
chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, in the 7th and 8th verses 
of that chapter. Peter then says : " Brethren, ye know how 
that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the 
Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, 
and believe ;" consequently Peter affirms just what Paul 
affirms, that faith comes by hearing the word of the gospel, by 



132 (Disciples' Church Claims, 

hearing the Word of God. I presume that Paul and Peter 
understood this matter perfectly. Here you have their in- 
structions upon the subject, and you have their answer to the 
question, how does faith come ? 

I say, then, that we are right in regard to the manner by 
which faith comes, by which faith is produced ; and we call 
your attention, that you may see that this is the right kind of 
faith, to the testimony as found in the 20th chapter of John's 
gospel and the 30th and 31st verses of the chapter, where we 
have these words: "And many other signs truly did Jesus 
in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this 
book : But these are written, that ye might believe that 
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing ye 
might have life through his name." These are written that 
ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; 
and that believing ye might have life through his name. We 
know the gentleman will not say that this faith here presented 
is not saving faith, that it is not justifying faith, if you 
please. It is that faith that looks immediately to the life that 
is enjoyed through Jesus Christ, our Lord. But we have in 
this declaration not only the manner in which faith is pro- 
duced, but then we have also the subject of faith, Jesus the 
Christ, the Son of God. Then we have presented, and the 
truth affirmed, that by this faith,- thus produced, we may en- 
joy life through the name of Jesus the Christ, that we may have 
life through his name. Then w T e are identical with the Scrip- 
tures upon this subject, and if the Scriptures are right, then 
we can not be wrong, for we stand precisely where they stand. 
We teach precisely, on this subject, what the Son of the liv- 
ing God in plain, explicit, and conclusive terms taught. 

We call your attention to the office of faith, and in order 
that we may get this subject fully before your minds, we state 
that in the 23d verse of the 3d chapter of 1st John we have 
this point presented. We state that the office of faith is two- 



(Dr. Lucas' Sixth Address. 133. 

fold in its character. First, it looks out and receives Jesus 
Christ as the Son of the living God. Consequently, we find 
in the passage, the 23d verse of the 3d chapter of John, these 
words: " This is his commandment, That we should believe 
on the name of his Son Jesus Christ." The first office of faith, 
then, is to lay hold upon the Saviour as the only Redeemer 
of man ; and, secondly, the office of faith is internal in its 
character, and is exerted upon the hearts, and, consequently, 
we find Peter affirming, in the 15th chapter of the Acts of 
the Apostles, the chapter before referred to, in the 8th and 
9th verses of the chapter — however, we read the 7th, 8th, 
and 9th verses together : " Brethren, ye know how that a 
good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles 
by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giv- 
ing them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us ; And put 
no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by 
faith" [Time Expired.] 



^hirft (§PveniriQ. 



ELDER RAY'S SIXTH REPLY. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen : Your attention is invited immediately to the 
reply. It does appear to me that my worthy friend has left 
the proposition to take care of itself. He affirms this and the 
other concerning what is taught in the Bible, when his propo- 
sition affirms that the church organization of which himself is 
a member is the visible church, or kingdom of Jesus Christ. 
And I think it is legitimate when I ask him to draw his con- 
clusions — not only to give us theory, but give us the facts and 
points of identity — not mere similarity. 

In regard to what he said about the gospel being preached, 
and not preached before the day of Pentecost, we have the facts 
before us. The difficulty that he tries to urge against me 
would lie with equal weight against the Saviour ; for he said, 
" The prophets were until John : since that time the kingdom 
of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." Now, 
the argument against my position is an argument against the 
position of Jesus Christ, and the reason I gave my opinion in 
regard to Matthias, is because Peter said one who had com- 
panied with them all the time must be elected, and when they 
prayed, they did not pray for God to select one, but to show 
them, by that means, whom he had chosen ; and a long time 
before the time of the apostasy of Judas. As found in John 



Elder (Ray's Sixth (Reply. 135 

vi. 70, Jesus declared, " Have not I chosen you twelve, and 
one of you is a devil ?" Having reference to Judas. So I let 
this pass for the present. 

In regard to the name, and the illustration that I gave, it 
seems he did not understand. He was basing the argument 
for his church identity on the name of his church, but to 
this moment he has not found the name " Christian Church" 
in the Bible, and can not find it. But, then, if he did, the 
fact that the denomination calls itself Christian Church 
would not prove that it was the Christian Church, or Church 
of Christ. 

But, the succession: He said, " he dies hard." Well, 
sometimes the wish is father to the thought. I suppose that 
he would like for me to die upon some of these points, be- 
cause they are in the gentleman's way, and trouble him very 
much. One more quotation I must give him upon the ques- 
tion of succession, or perpetuity of the church, as he has 
called my attention to it — Lard's Quarterly, for 1866, p. 309 : 
" We think it, in some of its most material features, utterly 
in error. The ' rock' is not that against which the Unseen is 
not to prevail ; neither has the church ever become extinct. 
These we deem gross errors." Moses Lard, one of the finest 
critics in the gentleman's church, a standard writer, denies his 
criticism in regard to "it" referring to " rock;" and then he 
says that the position that the church has become extinct is a 
gross error. Then my friend is in " gross error," according to 
the testimony of a man of the highest class of scholarship in 
his church; and, then, according to his own confession, if the 
succession stands, his church is a failure, because he knows it 
is of recent origin. He will not affirm that he is identified 
with an organization set up on the day of Pentecost. He will 
not affirm that. If he does, he will affirm succession. 

In regard to the government of the church — the officers — he 
simply affirms but does not prove. He quotes several passages 



136 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

of Scripture in regard to the church officers, He points to 
them and affirms, "we have the Bible officers ?" I ask him for 
his proof. Is he to be the standard of the denomination? I 
am not simply debating with Dr. Lucas. He comes here, set 
forth to defend the claims of his church, which we deny. So 
I must go to the leading men, and I must examine their writ- 
ings and their positions in regard to church officers and church 
government, church ordinances, and all these things. This is 
why I read from his authors ; because if I was to depend on 
the Bible alone, as far as his church is concerned, I would 
never get to his church. I could never examine into its claims, 
because it did not begin in Bible times, I mean in apostolic 
times. 

I deny that the Disciples have the church officers as laid 
down in God's Word. I do not deny the church officers as con- 
tained in the Bible, but where does he find authority for two 
classes of elders, different and distinct from each other — 
preaching elders and lay elders ; ruling elders, to rule over the 
congregation — giving to two or three men authority to execute 
the discipline of the church? I ask again, where does he find 
that ? It is not in the Scriptures, not in the Word of God ; and 
I will give you an example of the workings of this system. Dr. 
L. L. Pinkerton, one of the leading Disciples in the city of Lex- 
ington, as reported in the Observer and Reporter of June, 
1870, says of the elders of that church : "These men and 
others exactly like them, that he could name, exercise a worse 
than Popish tyranny over the Christian Church of this city, 
such as made its members almost afraid to breathe. The 
reformation that the two Campbells inaugurated had been 
terribly perverted. Instead of their blessed plan of Christian 
union being followed out, the breach had been made wider 
by uncharitableness. Instead of the number of conflicting 
churches being lessened, another church had been built up 
which had become worse than any of them, because the most 



Elder (Ray's Sixth (Reply, 137 

bigoted. It was the narrowest bigotry on this continent." 
This shows some of the fruits of that form of church govern- 
ment where two or three, or half a dozen men seize the reins 
of the government from the congregation, and instead of fol- 
lowing the direction of Jesus Christ, "if thy brother trespass 
against thee," finally " tell it to the church, and if he neglect 
to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man 
and a publican" — I say, instead of following that direction 
they have departed from it. 

But the Dr. tells us that they have the Bible faith — affirms 
it — and goes on to talk in regard to what is said in the Bible 
about faith. Let him produce any standard writer of his 
church on the doctrine that he contends for from the Bible. I 
wish to give you a quotation or two in regard to faith. Mr. 
Campbell says, Christian Baptist, p. 466 : "Faith, then, is 
just the belief or persuasion that the gospel is true, which per- 
suasion comes by hearing, perceiving or understanding what 
the Holy Spirit imparts or teaches concerning the Lord Jesus." 
Simply, then, the persuasion or conviction that the gospel is 
true is the faith that they contend for, or that Mr. Campbell 
contends for, Again, Mr. Campbell says, Christian Baptist, 
p. 529 : "Can men, just as they are found when they hear the 
gospel, believe ? I answer boldly, yes — just as easily as I can 
believe the well attested facts concerning the person and the 
achievements of General George Washington. I must hear 
the facts clearly stated and well authenticated before I am able 
to believe them. The man who can believe one fact well at- 
tested, can believe any other fact equally well attested." But 
again, Millennial Harbinger, vol. 2, p. 398, Mr. Campbell 
affirms : "Assistance to believe — how can a person be assisted 
to believe ? What sort of help, and how much is wanting ? 
Assistance to believe must be either to create in men a power 
which he had not before, or to repair a broken power." Thus 
teaching that by his own powers of mind, without the Spirit 



138 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

of the living God, the man may believe to the saving of the 
soul. I ask you to explain how it was that the Lord opened 
Lydias* heart that she attended to the things spoken of Paul, 
to those things spoken in the Word of God. But here is 
another statement in regard to faith. Mr. Lard, in his Quar- 
terly for 1867, p. 345, says : "That faith and belief are identi- 
cal ; that faith is the simple conviction that what the Bible 
says is true ; and that the notion of various kinds of faith is 
false." These proofs show that this faith which they talk about, 
is simply a mental persuasion. They say it comes before and 
independent of repentance ; that being so, a man hates God 
before repentance, and his faith then is a faith that may be 
exercised by wicked men ; and even demons are said to believe 
and tremble, though they hate God. 

Then, again, I wish your attention to another negative argu- 
ment. His ; is not the church of Christy because it denies the appro- 
priate work of the Holy Spirit in the conversion of sinners. Men 
are recognized in the Word of God as being dead in trespass 
and in sins — destitute of spiritual life — hating God and hating 
one another. This being man's natural condition, he can no 
more bring himself to life, give himself spiritual life, than 
a dead man can raise himself up. I will not be understood 
as teaching that a man is physically dead in sins — that he is 
mentally dead — but he is destitute of holiness, destitute of 
righteousness, destitute of love to God, destitute of spiritual 
life ; and these must be produced by the Spirit of the living 
God shedding abroad the love of God in his heart. Now, in 
regard to the teaching of the gentleman's church on spirit in- 
fluence I wish your attention. Millennial Harbinger, vol. 2, 
p. 397 : "All the moral power of God or of man is exhibited in 
the truth which they propose. Therefore, we .may say that if 
the light or truth contain all the moral power of God, then 
the truth alone is all that is necessary to the conversion of men, 
for we have before agreed and proved that the converting 



Elder (Ray's Sixth (Reply. 139 

power is moral power." Then, the truth alone is all that is ne- 
cessary, in their system. But, says one, "I have heard them 
frequently say that there must be a mighty power of the Spirit 
of God, and there is an influence of the Spirit; and I have 
heard the Dr. say there is an influence of the Spirit. What 
influence ? The Spirit of the living God influenced holy men 
to write the Word, but when that Word was written, they teach 
that all the power of the Holy Spirit which can operate on the 
human mind is spent, or exhausted. I read you upon this sub- 
ject from the testimony of Mr. Campbell, Millennial Harbin- 
ger, vol. 2, p. 295: "But to return. As the spirit of man puts 
forth all its moral power in the words which it fills with its ideas, 
so the Spirit of God pu£s forth all its converting and sanctifying 
power in the words which it fills with its ideas. Miracles can not 
convert ; they can only obtain a favorable hearing to the con- 
verting arguments. If they fail to obtain a favorable hearing, 
the arguments which they prove are as impotent as an un- 
known tongue. If the Spirit of God has spoken all its argu- 
ments, or if the New and Old Testaments contain all the ar- 
guments which can be offered to reconcile man to God, and to 
purify them who are reconciled, then all the power of the Holy 
Spirit which can operate upon the human mind is spent, and 
he that is not sanctified and saved by these can not be saved by 
angels or spirits human or divine. ,, That all the power of the 
Holy Spirit which can operate on tJie human mind is spent, ex- 
hausted, in the production of the Divine Word ! And when 
the Word operates in the arguments of the ministry of my 
friend's church, he calls that the operation of the Spirit! 
Again, Mr. Campbell has said upon this subject, Millennial 
Harbinger, vol. 2, p. 294 : "When we think of the power of 
the Spirit of God exerted upon minds or human spirits, it is 
impossible for us to imagine that, that power can consist in 
anything else but words or arguments. Thus, in the nature 
of things, we are prepared to expect verbal communications 



140 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

from the Spirit of God, if that Spirit operates at all upon our 
spirits." Verbal communication ! When the Disciples get a 
communication from the Spirit of God, it is verbal ! Do they 
get any verbal communications, and if so, how often, except 
what they have in the Word ? and when they pray for the aid 
of the Spirit, do they not violate their own system ? 

But, I want your attention to the fact, that while denying 
the work of the Spirit in the conversion of men, they claim 
the honor of converting the human race. Upon this subject 
Mr. Campbell (Millennial Harbinger, new series, vol. 1, p. 
271), says : " Christians must learn that the conversion of 
the world is the honorable employment to which the Lord 
has called them ; and that they may have the whole honor 
of this great work, he has sent neither apostles, prophets, 
nor angels to assist them since the establishment of the church 
in the world." I suggest that it would be better to divide, 
and give the Lord Jesus Christ a part of the glory, if they are 
not willing to let him have it all. But I learn from God's 
Word, that when we have done all we can, we are to say we 
are unprofitable servants, "our own righteousness is as filthy 
rags in his sight ;" and so a poor sinner is saved by grace, 
and not by his own righteousness. Then we must not claim 
that honor. But it is certain that they deny the work of the 
Holy Spirit. Mr. Campbell and those who have followed him, 
do so ; for I can quote from their authors — representative 
ones — who affirm the same doctrine. Mr. C. has even gone 
so far as to deny satanic power, only as the power of Satan 
in his word. There is no power of Satan on the earth, ac- 
cording to Mr. Campbell ; because if he had admitted that 
Satan had power to influence men's minds, without argument, 
he would have admitted that Satan had more power in this 
respect than God. But here is his statement upon the subject, 
Millennial Harbinger, vol. 5, p. 272 : " The Scriptures, so far 
from representing Satan as the god and governor of the air, 



Elder (Ray's Sixth (Reply. 141 

that it constantly represents him in a state of confinement for 
his apostasy and rebellion against God, reserved in chains under 
darkness, against the judgment of the great day. So that, instead 
of expatiating in the boundless fields of air, and shedding his 
woes upon miserable mortals, he, and his accomplices, are de- 
scribed by the apostle Peter as precipitated into the Tartarian 
regions, bound in adamantine fetters, and to continue there in 
custody till the final judgment. " And Mr. C. goes on to state 
that satanic power has been destroyed from the earth, only as 
it comes down by tradition. This being the case, it appears 
to me that they deny the plainest teachings of God's Word. 
Paul tells us to put on the whole armor of God, that we may 
be able to stand against the " wiles of the devil." You know 
it is said that the demons were cast out and went into the 
swine. They did not argue those swine into the sea. It was 
not done by persuasion, but it was done by their entering into 
the swine. Those demons were not fastened up in the Tarta- 
rian darkness. Peter represents Satan as a "roaring lion, 
going about seeking whom he may devour." Forty clays and 
nights on the mountains and in the desert, Satan tempted 
Christ. One of the sorest trials of his life was when he met 
the powers of Satan and his armies ; and yet, to make room 
for a new-fangled theory, which is false in its inception, and 
in consequences ruinous, Mr. Campbell has exorcised, and 
proposes to cast the devil out of all the dominions of God ; 
and then Mr. Campbell says there is no such thing now as 
devils in the world. I have the statement here where he says 
that Satan enters into men figuratively only. I would like for 
my friend to answer some of my questions. I try to answer 
all legitimate questions that are put to me. Again, I call 
upon him to answer this question : "Can any one be saved out 
of tJw church t" I do hope he will answer. Everything will 
go upon the record, and people will know exactly why he don't 
answer. 



142 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

But, the one hundred and twenty went into the Christian 
Church without Christian baptism ! He says the apostles 
Avere charter members. I wonder if there is any organization 
in this country, or anywhere else, where charter members can 
come in without having been initiated. Is that the rule — that 
outsiders, out of an organization, can become charter mem- 
bers by their own, or somebody else's appointment, without 
initiation ? No, sir. Grant they were charter members : 
they had their initiation ; they had Christian baptism, and 
the organization had been set up ; and the day of Pentecost 
others were added to them. Now, I ask the question, Was 
the baptism administered by the Lord Jesus Christ, through his dis- 
ciples, Christian baptism t When the Saviour baptized through 
his disciples, was that Christian baptism ? I would answer, 
even if it gave me a little trouble. Try it, anyhow. I ask, 
again, as he says the church became extinct, at what period ? 
He says it was set up on the day of Pentecost — though the 
Bible does not say so — and that it has apostatized and became 
extkict. I wish to know at what time the church apostatized. 
I would like to know what time it began the second time, the 
third, or fourth time, or how many times it has apostatized ; 
and how many times it has been set up again. These, and 
several other questions I w T ould like for you to answer, I 
would like to know what was the condition of pardon when 
men became saints, when there was no church in the world. 
How did they come to be children of God, when there was no 
church ? These are important questions, and, I think, ought 
to be answered. I would like to know r how the Pedobap- 
tists, whose hearts are purified by faith — (and that is the doc- 
trine he preached to-night — that before repentance or bap- 
tism men have a pure heart ; though he had them last 
night, and the night before, baptized in order to get their 
consciences purified or made good ; but now he has quoted a 
passage, and has them with pure hearts before baptism) — I 



Elder (Ray's Sixth (Reply. 143 

wish to know whether these Pedobaptists, loving Jesus, and 
having a hope of heaven — not understanding immersion to 
mean baptism, and, therefore, neglecting it — I ask him to tell 
me whether they have a well grounded hope of heaven, when 
they die and pass into the eternal world. The doctrine of the 
gentleman is certainly wrong in regard to baptism — making 
it a condition of pardon. Men are often placed under such 
circumstances that they can not obey this ordinance. The 
Saviour has never made a plan of salvation that can not 
be observed under all the circumstances of human misfortune. 
We have a case in point. On the cross, the poor robber, 
thief, was dying, and he looked to the Saviour, and said, " Ee- 
member me when thou comest into thy kingdom ;" and Jesus 
said, "This day shalt thou be with me in paradise" — saved I 
And then again : The poor, repentant publican smote on his 
breast, as he stood in the temple, and said, " God, be merciful 
to me, a sinner/' and he went down from the temple " justi- 
fied," rather than the proud Pharisee. Baptism was not a 
condition of pardon in the case of the poor, sinful woman, 
recorded in Luke vii. 36-50 : when she had bathed his feet 
with penitential tears (the feet of the Master), and wiped 
them with the tresses of her head, he said, " Thy faith hath 
saved thee : go in peace." That is the plan of salvation exe- 
cuted by the Son of God himself ; and, further, the Saviour of 
all said, " The son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." 
Before the day of Pentecost, he said, " All power is given unto 
me in heaven and on earth." This being the fact, he sent out 
the disciples to execute that grand and glorious commission. 
If I have time to notice another argument, I wish to call 
your attention to the fact, that the gentleman's church is not the 
true church, because it contains a mass of contradictions, and ad- 
mits the most fearful errors into fellowship. They have a great 
variety of doctrines in the church, and that is why it is so 
hard for people to understand precisely what they do teach. 



144 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

Mr. Campbell said (Millennial Harbinger, as quoted by Dr. 
Jeter, p. 320): " We have had a very large portion of this un- 
happy and mischievous influence to contend with. Every sort of 
doctrine has been proclaimed, by almost all sorts of preachers, 
under the broad banners, and with the supposed sanction of 
the begun reformation-" Showing that it is but a hive where 
the errors of almost fifteen centuries may accumulate and find 
a home in the gentleman's church. The reason of this is, be- 
cause they have only two points upon which it is absolutely 
necessary for them to agree. As stated in the Christian Sys- 
tem (and this is called by their writers the fundamental work), 
they do not exactly call it a discipline, but they look to it as 
a kind of directory, or guide, in their teachings ; and that is 
where the gentleman learns about " Jesus being coronated on 
the day of Pentecost :" he finds it here, and he talks a good 
deal about it — p. 122, Mr. Campbell says : " The belief of 
one fact, and that upon the best evidence in the world, is all that is 
requisite, as far as faith goes, to salvatio7i. The belief of this one 
fact, and submission to one institution expressive of it, is all that is 
required of heaven to admission into the church." * * * 
"Every such person is a disciple in the fullest sense of the 
word, the moment he has believed this one fact, upon the 
above evidence, and has submitted to the above mentioned in- 
stitution ; and whether he believes the five points condemned, 
or the five points approved by the synod of Dort, is not so 
much as to be asked of him ; whether he holds any of the 
views of Calvinists, or Arminians, Presbyterians, Episcopa- 
lians, Methodists, Baptists, or Quakers, is never once to be 
asked of such persons, in order to admission into the Christian 
community, called the church." Showing that the belief of 
one fact is sufficient ; and a little further on, he says that one 
fact is, that Jesus is the Messiah, and that one act is im- 
mersion. [Time Expired.] 



DR. LUCAS' SEVENTH ADDRESS. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen : My friend would have you believe that I have 
left the proposition. I have labored to show you that we 
taught certain things ; that the kingdom had begun on the 
day of Pentecost ; that the church was then established. I 
have presented the point that we have but one foundation, 
even Jesus, the Christ ; but one creed, the Word of God ; 
but one head of the church, and that we have the Bible name ; 
that we have the Bible ordinances ; that we have the Bible 
officers ; and, then, I have shown you that these points are 
presented in the Word of God, and upon all of them we are 
identical with the primitive church. By this we have not 
shown a similarity, but a positive identity, thus far in these 
characteristics of the church. And, while the gentleman may 
think that we have left the proposition, this audience will see 
that we are laboring to show that we possess precisely the 
characteristics that were possessed by the church primitively, 
and are thus laboring to establish our proposition. 

But, he quotes again : "The law and the prophets were 
until John." He says our position is opposed to the Saviour 
and John. Well, I am very certain it will be very hard for 
him to make this audience see that, just in that way. Now, 
if he had stated that we opposed his interpretation of these 
passages, then he would have told just exactly what is true, 
because we certainly do oppose his interpretation of these 
passages. Now, we quoted "the law and the prophets were 
until John, since then the kingdom of God is preached." But, 



146 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

the question arises, how is it preached ? as actually existing, 
or is it preached as at hand ? and as approaching ? 

"Enggidzo" as we have shown from a number of authori- 
ties, means to draw near, and we have quoted a number of 
passages in the Word of God to show this is the manner that 
the word is used in the divine Scriptures, as approaching, or 
drawing near. Now, we say it was preached in that way, 
and the Word of God thus presents the matter. Thus his in- 
terpretation of these passages we oppose — but not the pas- 
sages themselves, not the passage w T hen legitimately and 
properly interpreted, or presented. We say that the king- 
dom of God was preached as at hand, or as drawing near, or 
as approaching, since the days of John, and he has not relieved 
himself of the difficulty. 

But the apostles were not called until John w r as in prison, 
and Jesus did not give to them the kingdom until after he 
went away, and John preached the kingdom at hand before 
he was in prison. Now, then, I would like to know how John 
preached the kingdom of God as at hand, or as visibly exist- 
ing, according to his interpretation, before ever he was in 
prison— a long time before he was in prison, and yet the apos- 
tles were not called until after he was in prison, and they did 
not receive the kingdom till Jesus ascended to the Father, 
and, of course, it did not actually exist. I would like the 
gentleman to tell us how John could preach it as actually ex- 
isting before Jesus became the foundation, according to the 
gentleman's showing upon which the church or kingdom is 
made to rest. That is, according to the gentleman's position, 
the kingdom of God existed, and the church was built before 
it had a foundation. Now, we do oppose that interpretation 
of these Scriptures, and we expect to oppose them until the 
end, because we regard them as a perversion. The gentleman, 
as a matter of course, is sincere in what he has presented upon 
the subject, yet w r e regard this interpretation as standing in 



(Dr. Lucas' Seventh Address. 147 

direct opposition to the truth of the Word of God, as presented 
in the Scriptures of inspiration. 

But the name Christian. We have presented an argument 
here from certain passages, and we have founded an argument 
upon an examination of certain terms, and we have shown 
that this name is by divine appointment. Has he entered 
into an investigation of the argument founded upon these 
terms presented ? Has he shown that they were false ? He 
has not ! He will not ! He knows he can not ; therefore he 
will not ! He has never once entered upon the investigation 
of these terms in all the discussions we have held, or labored 
to show by the investigation of the terms themselves, that our 
interpretation of them is false. Not once has he ever done it. 
We feel very confident that he will not. 

But succession again ! Well, we will have to give the gen- 
tleman a little more on that question. We quoted from Ben- 
edict and Robinson the other night. He said that he indorsed 
Robinson ; still, he hangs on, notwithstanding his admission, 
as though he was determined not to give it up. Now, we will 
give him a little more Baptist authority on that question. 
We call your attention to the testimony as found in the En- 
cyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, p. 796, and this is Bap- 
tist authority. Now, then, what do we find? "We have 
now seen that the Baptists w T ho were formerly called Anabap- 
tists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Wal- 
deuses; and who long in the history of the church received the 
honor of that origin. On this account the Baptists may be 
considered as the only Christian community — " Here, then, 
you discover he is speaking with regard to the Baptist Church 
— a Baptist speaking. He says it has stood since the days of 
the apostles, and which has preserved the pure doctrines of 
the gospel through all ages. This is what he affirms here, 
and what my friend affirms. But now notice on further: 
" The perfectly correct external and internal economy of the 



148 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

Baptist denomination, tends to confirm the truth, disputed by 
the Romish Church, that the Reformation brought about in 
the sixteenth century was in the highest degree necessary ; 
and at the same time goes to refute the erroneous notion of 
the Catholics, that their communion is the most ancient." 
This is the testimony of Dermont. Here, then, we have quoted 
this simply to show you that we are willing to get before your 
minds all that they say. Now, this is his testimony, he says 
from the highest authority ; but this is not the passage we 
wanted to quote and get before your minds, for he goes on then 
to describe the Mennonites. We will give you just exactly 
what is said upon this question. I believe somebody has 
turned my leaves, or I have done it myself. But again we 
call your attention to page 1149, where the author is discus- 
sing this subject of succession. He says: "For, after all, 
an uninterrupted succession, however gratifying it may be to 
be able to trace it, is necessary only to the church which reg- 
ulates its practice by tradition, and not by the pure Word of 
God." Now, this is the testimony of this Baptist upon these 
subjects : that it is not necessary to trace it, only by such as 
propose to found their church upon tradition, and not upon 
the Word of God. 

Now, then, we call your attention to the passage that we 
thought we had open when we first opened the book, on page 
188. This is further Baptist testimony upon the subject of 
succession : " Innumerable volumes have been written under 
the title of Church History ; but, after all, we know but very 
little of the real church of Christ for many hundred years. 
We have very ample accounts of the Anti-christian church, 
that false pretender, in unhallowed alliance- with the kings of 
the earth, and drunken with the blood of the saints; but the 
history of the uncorrupted church, which maintained the 
word, worship, and the ordinances of Christ, while all the 
ivorld was wondering after the beast, is enveloped in the ob- 



(Dr. Lucas' Seventh Address. 149 

scurity of that retreat which God prepared her in the wilder- 
ness." Now, here he says we have no reliable, authentic his- 
tory of the true church for hundreds of years. And here 
Eobinson says, and so does Benedict, that we have no history 
of the succession of the church, and have not facts sufficient 
to construct a doctrine of the succession of the church of 
God. He affirms, and all those others affirm, that it is not 
necessary ; only to that individual that would labor to found 
his claim, or that church that would labor to found its claim 
upon tradition, and not upon the Word of God. 

But now, with regard again to Matthew xvi. 18, he says, 
or quotes Mr. Lard. Well, we stated that we believed that 
the antecedent of the pronoun there is "rock." We stated 
further, that we believed and that we knew that to be true, 
that either church or rock might stand as the antecedent of 
the pronoun " it," and we simply determine the question by 
other passages. Thus, we state, and the gentleman has not 
denied it, and he will not deny it, that either church or rock 
might grammatically stand and be represented by the pro- 
noun "it;" the pronoun "it" standing for either the one or 
the other. He has not denied this. I know he will not deny 
it ; and so far as our introduction of this passage into the con- 
troversy is concerned, it makes no difference whether you 
adopt the one or the other, for our argument is founded upon 
the declaration, "Upon this rock will I build my church." 
We have introduced this passage to show that the beginning 
of the church was future, and that is all that we introduced 
the passage to prove. 

But he says, "The gentleman (referring to me) does not 
affirm that his church is the church established on the day of 
Pentecost, or identical with it." That is just precisely what I 
do affirm, that the church with which I stand identified pos- 
sesses the characteristics that the church established on the 
day of Pentecost possessed, and as that was the church of 



150 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

Christ, the church with which I stand identified is the church 
of Christ— the visible church of Christ. Certain character- 
istics anciently were equal to the church of Christ, and these 
to-day are equal to nothing less than they were then, and are 
equal to the church of Christ now. 

But, the elders. He wants to know where there is any au- 
thority for the distinction between ruling elders and those who 
teach. Well, we will just call your attention to a passage, 
fo*r the gentleman's accommodation. In the 5th chapter of 1st 
Timothy, 17th verse: "Let the elders that rule well be 
counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor 
in the word and doctrine." Now, there is a distinction made 
by Paul — " especially they who labor in the word and doc- 
trine." 

But he says we are not the church. Why? Because we 
deny the work of the Holy Spirit. We say that this is not a 
fair presentation of the case. We affirm that the Spirit does 
operate ; that it operates through the truth. This is our 
proposition. We deny the interpretations of many of his 
brethren, when they affirm that the Spirit operates miracu- 
lously, independently, or above and beyond the truth. When 
he affirms this, we deny his interpretation; we deny that 
view of the matter ; but we do not deny the view as pre- 
sented in the Word of God, but affirm it and maintain it. 

But the Pedobaptists ! Are they saved? Suppose I say 
they are not, or suppose I say they are. I ask, how does that 
effect the proposition now before us ? Just in no way at all. 
But the gentleman would labor to get this point, and that 
point, and the other point before your minds into the investi- 
gation, that has no connection whatever, and it would seem 
to look as though the gentleman was laboring for a little sym- 
pathy upon this question ; that he would like to have a little 
sympathy from his Pedobaptist friends, while he calls them 
children of God, and when the question of the Lord's table is 



(Dr. Lucas' Seventh Address. 151 

before us. He says to them, " You are God's children, but 
you can not come here and eat with me at the Lord s table. 
I will examine you, and tell you to stay away." But he wants 
a little sympathy from that quarter, and I trust he may have 
it, if you can have it in your minds to give it to him. He 
endeavored to draw it out on the Southern Confederacy, and 
now he wants to draw it out among the Pedobaptists ; and all 
I have to say is, " Give him all the sympathy you can," for 
the Lord knows he needs all he can get. Let him have it. 
But he wants to know about the thief on the cross — "How 
was it with that individual ?" and so on. What will become 
of such as can not obey the gospel? I submit this proposi- 
tion : that ability is the measure of responsibility, and that a 
man is responsible just so far as he may have ability and 
opportunity to obey God, and no farther. So far as the thief 
upon the cross, so far as the publican and the woman, to 
which he refers, are concerned, I state that all these passages 
were before the day of Pentecost, and consequently come not 
into this investigation. While the Lord was here personally 
he had the right, and it was his prerogative to do as he 
pleased, and say what he pleased to the people that stood before 
him ; and then when he gave a law and commission by which 
the apostles were to be controlled, and told them to tarry in 
Jerusalem till they were endued with power from on high to 
be prepared to carry out that commission. Since that com- 
mission has been given, and the apostles have been qualified 
to carry it out, we are bound by that commission ; not by any- 
thing that antedates it as a law of pardon, but by the law as 
embodied in the commission itself. The commission embodies 
and embraces the law of pardon by which we are now to be 
governed, and by which we are now to be controlled. 

But, "all sorts of doctrine — all sorts of doctrine." Well, 
the gentleman lives in a glass house upon this subject, and he 
certainly ought not to throw stones, for there is just as great 



152 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

danger of his establishment being broken in as anybody 
else's. You can take the Calvinistic Baptists, that say God 
from all eternity elected a part of mankind without foresight, 
and cursed the other part. That is one view. Now, take the 
Baptists, again, and they say that the offers of pardon are 
unto all men ; and this they affirm; and then, again, you find 
that Jeter affirms that faith is the beginning of spiritual 
life ; repentance is a part of spiritual life, and, according to 
this idea, is the beginning of repentance, and yet my friend 
has repentance first. Lynd says : " He that believes truly 
will repent ;" but my friend says he can not believe at all un- 
til he has repented ; and here you have a contradiction among 
Baptists. And old Brother Hume says a man is pardoned be- 
fore repentance and faith and everything else; and here, 
again, is some of the doctrine of the Baptist Church. And 
then, again, I read from Baptistos, a letter that has been pub- 
lished by a Baptist preacher, as republished in the " Cincin- 
nati Standard;" and what does he say? "As regards our- 
selves, we immerse all applicants who confess their faith in the 
Christ, the divine Son of God, for the remission of sins. We 
believe nothing merely because it is in the Baptist creed, and 
to be found in the writings of uninspired men. We have 
churches which partake ordinarily of the Lord's Supper every 
Lords day, and churches which have never had any written 
creed. The Baptist Church would not reject an applicant 
for membership who confesses faith in Christ, unless having 
good reasons to doubt his sincerity." Now, here are Baptistos' 
views also upon that subject, and we might go on and give 
you a list almost as long as you might desire, showing that all 
sorts of doctrine are preached by Baptists also. Consequently, 
the gentleman should touch a question of this kind very 
lightly. 

But, to advance with our argument, we stated at the close 
of our address, that the office of faith was first to receive 



(Dr. Lucas' Seventh Address. 153 

Jesus, the Son of God ; secondly, to purify the heart — an in- 
ternal work. "Well, now the heart is purified, and the love of 
sin in the heart is destroyed, because the heart being purified 
by faith, and the love of sin being removed, it can not exist 
in the heart ; the love of holiness is created in its stead, and 
as it was the natural consequence for a man that loves sin, to 
practice sin, so now it is the natural consequence for a man 
that loves holiness, to practice holiness. The heart is purified 
by faith, and the love of holiness is created in that heart by 
virtue of the office of faith upon the heart, and a godly sorrow 
for sin is excited in the heart by virtue of the office of faith 
upon the heart, and now, says Paul, this godly sorrow works 
repentance — it is not repentance itself. 

The gentleman w T ould have you believe that this is repent- 
ance itself, but says Paul, in the 7th chapter of the 2d Corin- 
thians and 10th verse: "For godly sorrow" — that is, the re- 
sult of the office of faith upon the human heart — "worketh 
repentance to salvation not to be repented of:" There can not 
be any gospel repentance without godly sorrow. The godly 
sorrow must exist before repentance, for this repentance unto 
salvation is worked by the godly sorrow that exists in the 
heart by virtue of the purifying influence and power of faith 
upon the heart. Then we say that w T e are identical with the 
original church, with regard to the office of faith. We re- 
mark, then, thirdly, that we are identical with the primitive 
saints, in regard to the connection that exists between faith 
and obedience to God. W T e say that faith without works of 
obedience to God is dead, as the body without the spirit is 
dead. Faith without works is dead also, being alone. This 
is the language of James, the apostle, and so we affirm, and 
we affirm in strict accordance with the language of Paul, as 
found in Romans vi. 17, 18 : "God be thanked, that ye were 
the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that 
form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made 



154 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness, and 
have you fruit unto holiness, and in the end everlasting life.^ 
That when they obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine, 
that they were made free from sin and became the servants of 
righteousness. The forty-seven translators of the king have 
translated this little particle " de" by the word " then," and 
you may translate it then, or therefore, and the idea is pre- 
cisely the same ; they were made free from sin when they 
obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine delivered unto 
them, and not only made free from sin, but became the serv- 
ants of righteousness. And this is in strict accordance with 
the great commission given to the apostles, when Christ says : 
"Go preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall 
be damned." Here you have this connection between faith 
and obedience to God, and not only here, but then you have 
in the commission, as recorded by Luke xxiv. 46, 47 : "Thus 
it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third 
day : And that repentance and remission of sins should be 
preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jeru- 
salem." Here, then, this repentance in connection with faith 
of the gospel, this obedience to God, is enjoined in order to 
salvation. My friend's interpretation of the commission, as 
given by Mark, seems to be this : He that believeth and is saved, 
shall be baptized, for he denies that obedience, in connection 

> with faith, has anything to do with the justification of the sin- 
ner ; and he says, with Mr. Jeter, that the very moment, the 

1 very instant that the man believes he passes from the state of 
condemnation to justification, he passes out of the kingdom of 
darkness into the kingdom of light, becomes a child of God, 
and is accepted of the Father. Hence, we say that with this 
position he must take the position that he that believeth and 
is saved, shall be baptized ; while Jesus says, that he that be- 
lieves and is baptized, shall be saved. But, you notice here, 



(Dr. Lucas' Seventh Address. 155 

the illustration as given by James, the body without the 
spirit is dead. You see the ghastly skeleton in all its fright- 
ful character, fit representative and emblem of the land of 
death. All the life and beauty of that organism has passed 
away ; the sparkle of the eye has grown dim in death ; the 
step has faltered, and the beauty of that form has faded, and 
is no more. I ask you " wdiat is it?" " Well," says James, 
* 'that is faith, without obedience; that is faith alone." But 
here in the perfect form as it came from the hand of the 
Eternal Father, when the first pair were placed in the garden 
of delights, that garden of flowers and beauty beheld that 
perfect form; the sparkling eye, the rosy cheek and sym- 
metry of form ; behold it there in all its completeness, in all 
its beauty, and what is that ? Says James, "that is faith and 
obedience ; that is faith made perfect by obedience to God," 
while, in this other case, without obedience faith is dead, and 
is as the body without the spirit. [Time Expired.] 



ELDER RAY'S SEVENTH REPLY. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, and Kespected 
Audience : I proceed to call your attention to the remarks of 
my worthy friend, but before I do, I wish to call your atten- 
tion to the testimony that I desired to read in the former 
speech, on page 175 of Mr. Lard's Quarterly, for 1866 — a 
foot note in regard to Mr. Campbell's views on demonology : 
"The devil is never said to enter into any one unless in some 
figurative way, as in the case of Judas" (Campbell's lecture, 
quoted), showing that the erroneous views of Mr. Campbell 
concerning Spirit influence caused him to reject the Bible doc- 
trine of satanic power and satanic influence. But my friend 
took care not to answer the argument drawn from his own 
authors. He does not contradict, nor call in question the 
quotations. I wish you to remember the correctness of these 
quotations, as read from his authors. The doctrines contained 
in them show the fearful errors into which his church has 
fallen. He thinks that there would be some palliation, how- 
ever, if he could find errors among the Baptists. But we are 
not discussing Baptist claims just now. He would like to get 
off of the subject on to something else, as he finds this very 
hard work. But, we will attend to that when we come to it, 
please, Dr. Lucas. 

But, the Dr. says, in regard to the Lord's Supper, "the time 
of its observance" — and he emphasizes it very forcibly — "is the 
first day of the week." I call upon him for divine authority 
to show that that ordinance should be observed every first day 



Elder (Ray's Seventh (Reply. 157 

' of the week any more than every day of the week. Let him 
give us the chapter and verse. 

But he gets up and tells the people I am pleading for the 
Pedobaptists' sympathy. I do not know that I am doing so. 
I wish to press the gentleman to take a position in regard to 
the different plans of salvation he has advocated ; and if he 
confesses that men may be saved without baptism, then, ac- 
cording to his position, they may be saved without remission 
of sins, without the new birth, and without regeneration ! If 
the Pedobaptists are saved, I wish to know by what plan he is 
going to save them, and then we will have all his plans. But 
he must appeal for sympathy to Baptist communion. Well, 
we have not come to that yet. You can just hold up. You 
have enough to do, it seems to me, with the present proposi- 
tion, if you will attend to your work closely. I will read you 
in regard to the communion from Mr. Campbell, the father and 
founder of his church, vol. 2, Millennial Harbinger, p. 393 : 
"We do not recollect that we have ever argued out the merits 
of this 'free and open communion system.' But one remark we 
must offer in passing, that we must regard it as one of the weak- 
est and most vulnerable causes ever plead; and that the 'great' 
Mr. Hall, as he is called, has, in his defense of the practice, made 
it appear worse than before. In attempting to make it rea- 
sonable, he has only proved how unreasonable and unscriptur- 
al it is." And yet the gentleman's church practices that that 
Mr. Campbell declares to be "unscriptural" and "unreasonable." 
And Mr. Lard affirms that it is wrong — that it is doing injus- 
tice to the cause of truth, and injustice to the community. 
And yet my friend advocates a communion with those that he 
will not admit before this enlightened congregation to be chil- 
dren of God. He wants to commune with those not immers- 
ed, not baptized, and it is very hard to tell just exactly which 
side of the line he stands. They will admit that, perhaps, 
there are children of God among the Pedobaptists, but when 



158 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

pressed very hard they say, "Well, there is no salvation with-' 
out baptism !" I wish to develop the gentleman in regard to 
his plans of salvation. If baptism is a condition of pardon, 
I wish to know if Pedobaptists will get to heaven, dying in 
that situation ? I ask these questions in all candor, and I 
think this enlightened community will demand that you an- 
swer my questions. You ask me questions of this sort, and I 
will answer to the best of my ability, whether I fail or not. 
You ask a fair question, and I will try to answer it. 

But he refers you to the Southern Confederacy. I do not 
think — in fact, I know I did not say I was a member of the 
Southern Confederacy. I lived under that government for a 
while, but I was not connected with the government as such. 

In regard to the question of succession he seems very much 
troubled, and he undertook to read a quotation against it, as 
he supposed. He began with a passage that was suitable to 
read, but instead of it being the testimony of a Baptist, it is 
the testimony of learned Pedobaptists. And he read to where 
it said the Baptists had stood from the time of Christ until 
now, but, then, he found that would not do, and he stopped 
reading. Well, I sympathize with him a little just there, be- 
cause I may miss my pages and get into trouble too. But, 
then, he read from p. 188, Religious Encyclopedia : "Innumer- 
able volumes," says the author, "have been written under the 
title of Church History, but, after all, we know but very lit- 
tle of the real church of Christ for many hundred years. We 
have very ample accounts of the Anti-christian church, that 
false pretender, in unhallowed alliance with the Icings of the earth, 
and drunlcen with the blood of the saints ; but the history of the 
uncorrupted church, which maintained the word, worship, 
and ordinances of Christ, while all the world was wondering after 
the beast y is enveloped in the obscurity of that retreat which 
God prepared for her in the ivildemess" Showing that this writer 
holds that while the history of the real church of Christ had 



Elder (Ray's Seventh Reply. 159 

not been written as the history of anti-christ had, yet that 
church was preserved. And the gentleman's proof shows the 
doctrine of the succession of the church in the wilderness. 
So he has made no headway against the testimony that we have 
brought to bear upon this subject. 

But, the right name. He asks me to enter the discussion of 
the name. Whenever he finds the name "Christian Church" 
used as a denominational name in the Bible, I will discuss it. 
I do not object to the name Christian, and never have, as ap- 
plied to God's children, but not as a church hobby, not as an 
exclusively denominational name : it is not so found in God's 
Word, and he ought to know it by this time. When he finds 
it used in that manner, I will yield this point. I wish him to 
tell me in what chapter and verse of the Bible he finds the 
word Christian applied to the church. I call your attention to 
the testimony of Alexander Campbell (Millennial Harbinger, 
new series, vol. 4, p. 24) on the name Christian : " Have we 
any divine authority for being called Christians at all ? The 
same question may be variously propounded ; as, for example, 
was the name Christian first given by heaven or earth, by 
God or man ? Or, was it recommended by human authority, 
and finally adopted by divine authority T "We may fearlessly 
affirm, from all that has recently been written on the subject, 
and from all that is in the New Testament, that no person can 
possibly prove that it was divinely introduced or sanctioned." 
And yet he is trying to prove it. Again: "If the name 
Christian had been given at Antioch, twenty years before, by 
divine command, what an ungodly man must Luke have been 
during these twenty-one uears after, and fourteen years before 
— in all, thirty-five years — never to have called them Chris- 
tians, but, on the contrary, waywardly and frowardly to have 
called them disciples all the while." "Unless, then, Ave suppose 
this man Luke to have been a bold and daring offender 
against a divine revelation, it is infallibly certain that he and 



160 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

his companions, the apostles, did not receive the name. Chris- 
tian as coming from heaven, but from the rude and profane 
Antiochians.' 1 Thus, the father of his church testifies, with all 
the force of his logic, that the name Christian did not come from 
God, from heaven ; that it was not even divinely sanctioned, but 
was derived from the rude and profane Antiochians. I think it is 
time to let that pass. 

But he tells us he has authority for two classes of elders. 
You have not given us the proof yet, in my humble judg- 
ment. " Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of 
double honor, especially those that labor in word and doc- 
trine." Now, if he will examine the meaning of the word 
Kopiontes, he will find that it means to labor exhaustively, or to 
be weary, tired, faint, to labor to exhaustion. There is a differ- 
ence between the labors of those who are elders. Some toil 
their lives away, toil to exhaustion, until weary and faint ; 
and others are elders that labor comparatively little. There 
is only one office found and described in the New Testament 
as applicable to elders. If there are two different orders of 
elderships, where are the two offices described in the Word of 
God ? The gentleman can not find it to save his life — the po- 
sition they occupy, ruling over the church of God, in the 
transaction of the church business. He will find set forth, if 
he will examine carefully, in the Word of God, that the ruling 
of elders is to be by example unto the church of God, and by 
wholesome doctrine — not by taking the transaction of the 
business of the church out of the hands of the church. 
When my friend studies the subject he will find this to be the 
fact. Thus, it is shown that he is wrong, mistaken, in regard 
to the officers of his church. 

Again, he refers to Matthew xvi. 18. He is troubled about 
that now. " We did not quote it in order to prove the succes- 
sion, but to show that the building of the church was future !" 
Well, it appears the passage has two edges to it ; and while it 



Elder (Ray's Seventh (Reply. 161 

does not militate against our position concerning the setting 
up of the church, or building up increasingly, it shows that the 
church is not to be prevailed against by the gates of hell. And 
I have piled upon him the testimony of Campbell, Lard and 
Lipscomb, and Franklin — all the weight of learning and pow- 
er in the gentleman's denomination, showing that the church 
of the living God has stood until now ; and, if I understand 
him, he says, if it has stood, and the succession is true, then he 
surrenders his cause. 

He has certainly failed, and certainly will fail, because he 
has to prove, not simply that they have points of similari- 
ty, but that they are identical. And if the original church 
has ceased to exist, then there is no church of Christ on earth, 
and can not be, because the one set up by uninspired men — I 
care not how many points of similarity it may have — can not 
be the church of Christ. It must have the organization and 
perpetuity. While Baptist authors say that it is not necessary 
to our claims that we be able to trace the succession, yet we 
claim there must be a succession. The church has continued, 
whether we are able to trace it or not. But when we find a 
church set up by men lately, we know that is not in the suc- 
cession, not the true church. 

The Dr. appeals for sympathy in regard to the Lord's table. 
The Disciples hold open communion with those they do not 
recognize as God's children, but they talk about Baptist close 
communion ! 

But we come to another statement. Ability, he says, is tlw 
measure of responsibility, I suppose that he applies that to 
men. I believe that God holds the devil responsible, yet 
he is unable to turn and live. The Saviour commanded him 
"to serve the Lord thy God," and that "Him only shaltthou 
serve ;" and yet Satan could not do so. There are men who 
commit the unpardonable sin, and it is just as impossible for 
them ever to become Christians as it is for Satan, According 



162 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

to the gentleman's rule, when they have committed the unpar- 
donable sin, then they are not responsible for any outrage they 
may commit ! Then, again, the heathen and those not in heath- 
en lands, not having heard the gospel, not having a minister 
to baptize them, and as baptism is a condition of pardon, as he 
was trying to argue just now, then they are saved on the 
ground of irresponsibility, because they have not the ability to 
be baptized ! Then all the heathen are saved without the gos- 
pel, and without baptism, according to the gentleman's rule ! ! 
If so, it is a great misfortune to send the gospel to the heath- 
en. I wonder he don't quit making rules when he gets into 
such trouble with his rules. 

But the examples I referred to — the pardon of the poor 
woman and the publican. He says that all these were before 
the day of Pentecost ; yet, he has told this people that the 
Disciples accept Christ, while they reject the Bible plan of 
salvation executed by the Son of God himself. He takes the 
Bible himself, but when I press him with the Bible truth of 
the living God, he cries out: "Oh, that was before the day of 
Pentecost, way back yonder ;" like a last year's almanac, it is 
out of date just now, 

I proceed with my argument. I was introducing proof to 
show that his is not the church of the living God, because it 
furnishes a congenial home for a vast multitude of heresies — soul- 
destroying and blighting heresies. I wish to call your attention 
to Millennial Harbinger, new series, vol. 1, p. 510. It seems 
there was one Dr. Thomas, of Virginia, a brother reformer of 
Mr. Campbell's, who got to advocating a set of doctrines of this 
sort — and I will read some points of doctrine advocated by 
him. He says : "All infants, idiots and heathens will sleep 
through endless duration — they can never rise." He was a 
non-resurrectionist, it seems. Again: "All Methodists, Old 
Side Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and sinners, will 
be raised to the damnation of annihilation." That is a pretty 



Elder (Ray's Seventh Reply. 163 

hard sentence, it seems to me. "Eternal life or existence con- 
ditional, the condition being faith in the resurrection of Christ 
from the dead, reformation and baptism," "Man has no soul 
nor existence separate, distinct, and independently of the 
body." "That the Spirit of God does not operate on any per- 
son apart from the word written." "It is sinful for an uncon- 
verted person to pray to God." Dr. Thomas held these abom- 
inable errors, yet he professed to believe the one fact, that Jesus 
is the Messiah, and to submit to the one act No man could 
turn him out of the church. According to Mr. Campbell's 
law or rule, he had a right there. Notwithstanding the Dis- 
ciples sometimes will discuss these questions with Universal- 
ists, and contend that it is a terrible heresy, yet, if a Univer- 
salist will come inside of their church no questions will be 
asked, but as long as he is outside they will fight him to the 
last. I would like to know whether the gentleman is disposed 
to call in question these statements. I say, then, that the gen- 
tleman's church is full of contradictions. Mr. Campbell says 
that all the power of the Holy Spirit which can operate on the 
human mind is spent, as already quoted. Again, he says in 
regard to faith: "Saving faith is wrought in the heart by the 
Holy Spirit, and that no man can believe to the saving of the 
soul, but by the Holy Spirit." — [Chris. Bap., p. 353.] Denying 
the power of the Holy Spirit to operate upon the human heart, 
as it has been exhausted, then again declaring that saving faith 
is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit. Contradiction 
after contradiction is found in the system. 

As the gentleman quotes so largely from Dr. Jeter, in re- 
gard to the reformation, I would like to turn to a statement 
from the Dr., p. 365: "It would not be difficult from the 
writings of Mr. Campbell, to draw up a creed, which in all 
essential points would be acceptable to evangelical Christen- 
dom. In this chiefly lies the danger of Campbellism. Thou- 
sands qf persons have been seduced into the belief that the 



164 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

Reformers differ nothing from the Baptists, except in weekly 
communion, and other unimportant points. But the reader 
has seen that Campbellism has two sides — an orthodox and a 
heterodox — an evangelical, and, for lack of a better term, it 
must be said, a reformed side." So, then, they hold out the 
orthodox side when it suits them, and say we are almost the 
very same as "Baptists." I have heard some of the Disciples, 
since I come into this community, say "there is no difference 
scarcely !" Yet, they deny that the Baptists belong to the 
church of Christ. Sometimes they complain because we wont 
commune with them. They want to commune with Babylon, 
as they call us. They are hungry almost to commune with 
those whom they regard as in Babylon ! Mr. Jeter said, in 
regard to the time when they were excluded from the Baptist 
fellowship, p. 88: "What was to be done in this crisis? The 
Reformers, with Mr. Campbell at their head, were violently 
opposed to separation from the Baptists, and were ready, to a 
man, to fight for peace. It can hardly be doubted that this 
desire of union sprang from policy, rather than love. They 
were willing to remain for a time in Babylon, that they might 
extricate others from its smoke, vassalage, and degradation. 
Knowing themselves to be in a hopeless minority, they were 
desirous to be permitted to avail themselves of Baptist pulpits 
and presses, for the propagation of their principles. But a 
division was inevitable. It existed in fact — a division in senti- 
ment, affection, interest, and aim — and it only remained to be 
carried out in form. Had the churches a right to expel the 
Reformers? The power of expelling factions and disorderly 
members seems to be indispensable to the purity, peace, and 
prosperity of the churches, and this power is distinctly con- 
ferred by the Scriptures," showing that for these errors they 
were excluded. They will hold out the orthodox side of the 
reformation, and say "we believe that the Holy Spirit 
operates," but when you come to ferret them out, they mean 



Elder (Ray's Seventh (Reply. 165 

the Holy Spirit operated in dictating God's Word, and when 
the Word was finished, the Holy Spirit retired from the work. 
That is the teaching of Mr. Campbell and of Mr. Lard — and 
it is the teaching of others — some few of them sometimes will 
say "that in the hearts of Christians there is a direct operation 
of the Spirit of God." I do wish the Dr. would tell us whether 
he believes in the direct operation of the Spirit of God in the 
hearts of Christians — an immediate operation. I ask that 
question. He may tell me he believes it, but I would like for 
him to tell it publicly. Sing it out, if you please, my dear 
friend. Again, Mr. Jeter's (Campbellism Examined, p. 93) : 
"This unhappy state of things has evidently been produced by 
the preaching and writings of Alexander Campbell, and his ad- 
herents. After having deliberately and prayerfully examined 
the doctrines held and propagated by them, and waited long 
to witness their practical influence on the churches, and upon 
society in general, we are thoroughly convinced that they are 
doctrines not according to godliness, but subversive of the true 
spirit of the gospel of Jesus Christ — disorganizing and de- 
moralizing in their tendency ; and, therefore, ought to be dis- 
avowed and resisted by all the lovers of truth and sound 
piety." Page 95 : "While they arrogate to themselves the 
title of ' Reformers,' it is lamentably evident that no sect in 
Christendom needs reformation more than they do." This is 
the testimony of the ablest men that ever lived upon Vir- 
ginia's soil. These ancient men of God had examined the 
fruits of that system, wherein all sorts of doctrine was preached 
by nearly all sorts of preachers, under the broad banners and 
with the supposed sanction of the reformation. 

Millennial Harbinger, new series, vol. 3, p. 338, Mr. Camp- 
bell says: "When v/e drew up our prospectus for our first 
publication, we headed it the ' The Christian/ and had it not 
been that we found ourselves anticipated, we should have ad- 
hered to the title. I hesitated between the title ' Baptist 



166 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

Christian ' and ' Christian Baptist/ and, on suggesting my em- 
barrassment to a friend, who has since given himself due 
credit for the hint as an original idea, he thought the latter 
[Christian Baptist] was a better passport to favor than either 
of the others. We never fully approved, but from expedi- 
ency adopted it. Finding that our brethren were being 
called ' Christian Baptists,' we changed the title of our work 
when we enlarged it, designing it only to be the harbinger of 
better times ;" showing that he adopted the name Baptist in 
connection with his paper, from expediency — not because he 
approved it, but as a passport to favor, because he desired suc- 
cess among Baptists — because he desired fellowship among 
them! [Time Expired.] 



DR. LUCAS' EIGHTH ADDRESS. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen : My friend is determined to hold on to the old 
question of succession. He goes back to it again. Now, 
then, we quoted and we based our position right upon this 
language, as we stated in the beginning — and my friend has 
admitted it — Benedict, page 51, on the succession of the 
church : "I shall not attempt to trace a continuous line of 
churches, as we can for the few centuries past in Europe and 
America. That is a kind of succession to which we have 
never laid claim, and, of course, we make no effort to prove 
it. We place no kind of reliance upon this sort of testimony to 
establish the soundness of our faith, or the validity of our ad- 
ministration, and so we affirm ; v and then he goes on further : 
"The more I study the subject, the stronger are my convic- 
tions, that if all the facts in the case could be disclosed, a very 
good succession might be made out." If all the facts could be 
disclosed — if we only had the evidence, we could prove suc- 
cession beyond all doubt, but not having the evidence, of 
course we can not do it. Just like many other things where 
the little " if" steps in. 

And now I am going to call your attention to the testimony 
of Benedict and Robinson. They are leading writers in the 
Baptist Church — Eobinson says, and Benedict indorses the 
statement — pages 34, 35 : "The Protestants, by the most sub- 
stantial arguments, have blasted the doctrine of Papal suc- 
cession ; and yet these very Protestants have undertaken to 
make proof of an unbroken series of persons of their own sen- 



170 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

friend is pretty nearly in the same difficulty — even granted 
that it is so. Here are those that teach this heresy, called 
Campbellism, and he fights it now and calls us, if not in so 

many words, a set of hypocrites, acting not from 

principle, but from policy and dishonesty, and in regard to 
whom the gentleman says : "I w T ill fight and talk about you 
in that way as long as you are outside, but if you will come 
and join the Baptists, we will take you without baptizing, and 
without changing your principles at all. That is all right if 
you will join the Baptists, and come in the Baptist Church. 
" That is all right, but we will fight you as long as we can if you 
don't join the Baptist Church." Now, we have a case of that 
very kind right here. It is well enough for the gentleman to 
inquire in regard to his surroundings, before he goes so far 
from home. 

Now, we wish to call your attention to some of the points 
that have been presented ; and I ask you, did the gentleman 
notice what we presented ? We called your attention to the 
manner in which faith was produced and created in the heart ; 
we called your attention to the positive declaration of the 
Word of God, where it is affirmed that faith comes by hear- 
ing, and hearing by the Word of God ; w T e called your atten- 
tion to the declaration that ' ' these signs are written that you 
might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living- 
God, and that believing ye might have life through his name." 
Has the gentleman noticed our arguments, even on these sub- 
jects, wherein we showed our perfect identity, on this subject, 
with the primitive church — not like it, but perfectly identical 
with the primitive church ? We have shown you that by 
faith the heart is purified, and that as the result that godly 
sorrow is wrought in the heart, and that this godly sorrow 
works repentance unto salvation ; not that it is repentance 
itself, but it "works repentance unto salvation that needeth 
not to be repented of." And we have shown a connection here 



(Dr. Lucas' Eighth Address. 171 

between faith and repentance, and we have shown that this 
faith and this repentance is necessary in order to the remission 
of sins, and that one is but the result of the office of the 
other on the heart as exhibited in the life. Has he shown that 
we are wrong on that subject? We have appealed to the 
Word of God to show that we are not similar to the primitive 
saints, on this question, but that we are perfectly identical, that 
we stand on the same ground precisely. Have you heard him 
notice our arguments upon these points f upon these subjects ? 
No. Thus far he has been as silent as the night of the grave. 
But what has he done? Why, he has called your attention 
again to Campbell and Lard. He has quoted from all those 
authorities. Now, I w T ill just state again, that if you will 
take from him Campbell and Lard, and one or two other 
works from which he has quoted, he would not have a thing 
to say. He would then, as we sometimes say out in this 
western country, be entirely destitute of ammunition. He would 
have nothing at all to say ; and, as before stated, in the pros- 
pective book that is to result from this discussion, if you will 
just take away from him what he submits, what he has quoted 
from Campbell and Lard, and one or two others, it would not 
be right to call it a Ray and Lucas discussion, sure as you 
live, for Brother Ray would not have much in it. He would 
not have much in the book. He would have but a very small 
part. His part is a very small portion, and in order to make 
up his time, and to make a reasonable portion of the book, he 
must call on Campbell and Lard, and a few others. Well, I 
knew that is just precisely what he would do, because I have 
seen him go over the course before ; and I knew very well 
that he had no other kind of material to occupy his time and 
interest the audience. But we-have presented arguments, and 
he has failed to notice them ; and this audience will bear testi- 
mony to the fact that he has noticed but very few arguments 
that we have submitted, and upon which we especially rely 



172 (Disciples' Church Claims* 

for the establishment of the truth of the proposition we affirm. 
We started out with certain Scriptures, in order to show that 
the beginning of the kingdom of God was on the first Pente- 
cost after the ascension of the Saviour, and that this was the 
teaching of the Word of God upon the subject ; that we are * 
identical with the Word of God upon this question — this be- 
ing our teaching — the Word of God — no more, and no less. 
We have presented these points ; we have called your atten- 
to the various passages of the Scriptures — to a great number 
of Scriptures, in order to establish the truth of our proposi- 
tion. And what has he done ? Well, he has said the law and 
the prophets were until John : since then the kingdom of God 
is preached. He has quoted that passage. He has quoted 
one or two other passages of a kindred nature and character, 
but has he labored to show that these passages, to which we 
have referred, can be reconciled with his interpretation of 
those passages ? I ask you, have you heard his effort at re- 
conciliation upon these passages ? I feel confident that you 
will bear me testimony that that effort has not been made. 
But we have labored to show you that all those passages quoted 
by the gentleman may be explained and reconciled fully with 
those that we have quoted, looking to the futurity of the es- 
tablishment of the kingdom of Christ, and we have given you 
a rule by which to examine those passages ; that is, we have 
given you a rule by which we may settle this question ; and 
that rule is this : That in the Scriptures of God that things that 
are future are very frequently spoken of as present, or as past ; that 
things present or past are never spoken of as future. We have 
submitted this rule. We have challenged him to show its fal- 
lacy. We have challenged him to show that the rule is not 
in strict accordance with fact, and that it is not a safe and re- 
liable rule of interpretation. Has he presented a single case in 
the Word of God to show that this rule affirms falsely ? If he 
will show a single case in the Word of God where this rule af- 



(Dr. Lucas' Eighth Address. 173 ' 

firms falsely, then we say to you, that we will frankly ac- 
knowledge our error upon the question ; but he has not in the 
two preceding debates. He has not now ; and yet this rule 
has been before him all the time ; and he will not — and why ? 
Because he can not. He can not show that this rule affirms 
falsely. We have presented various arguments, and have sub- 
mitted them in various forms. Has he shown you that they 
were false ? In regard to the foundation, has he shown you 
that we were wrong ? In regard to the creed, has he shown 
you that we were wrong? The truth, the Scriptures in- 
spired of God, we claim as the only creed ; we presented to 
the gentleman this fact, that the Scriptures inspired of God 
constitute our rule ; that they furnish the doctrine ; that 
they furnish the reproof; that they furnish the instruction in 
righteousness, the correction and instruction in righteousness, 
so that the men of God may be truly furnished unto all good 
works ; may be perfectly and thoroughly furnished unto all 
good works. Has he shown you that we have affirmed falsely 
in regard to this matter ? Has he shown you that this is not 
true with reference to those of my brethren, with those with 
whom I stand identified ? Has he shown you that this was 
not the primitive doctrine and position of the church? Has he 
shown that we are not identical with the primitive saints upon 
this question ? He has not. He has not shown it ; and so 
with regard to the head of the church ; and so with regard to 
every point that we have here presented. And when we 
come down to the last point discussed, the subject of faith, the 
subject of repentance, and the connection of obedience with 
faith, has he shown you that our position is false ? Has he 
taken the argument furnished from James out of our hands ? 
He has not. He does not even try to do it. He does not 
even mention the passage. He can talk a great deal better 
about something that Alexander Campbell has said, and that 
he has opposed in his little book. He can talk a great deal 



174 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

better about that than he can talk about what James has 
affirmed, or the apostle Peter has presented, or Paul has de- 
clared. He has not even referred to the passage but when we 
presented the argument in favor of our position, the connec- 
tion of faith and obedience, as presented in the commission, 
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Has he 
referred to it? Did he mention it at all? Did he, I ask you, 
show you that our argument was false upon that question? 
You all know that he did not. He did not even mention it. 
But he began to read from Campbell again, and from Lard, 
and from somebody else. He never even mentioned the point 
of the difficulty that w r e presented. But, from his standpoint, 
the passage should read, " He that believeth and is saved shall 
be baptized," while the apostle says, " He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved." 

In connection with these passages, we call your attention to 
some others. Notice the language as found in John iii. 5. In 
the 3d verse Jesus tells Mcodemus, " Except a man be born 
again, he can not see" — he can not discern or enjoy — "the 
kingdom of God." Nicodemus inquires, how can this be? 
In the 5th verse Jesus answers that question : "Except a 
man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into 
the kingdom of God." Here, then, we have the Saviour af- 
firming that it is necessary that the individual shall be born 
of water, as well as of the Spirit ; that he must submit to the 
institution of baptism, in connection with the Spirit's influence, 
in order to enter into the kingdom of God — for all, or nearly 
all, with very few exceptions, agree that our Saviour refers to 
Christian baptism ; and we have not only this passage showing 
that it is necessary that the individual be baptized, as well as 
come under the influence of the Spirit, or brought under the 
influence of the Word of God, in order to enter into the 
kingdom of God, Not only these passages show that in the 
plan of conversion baptism is found in connection with faith 



(Dr. Lucas' Eighth Address. 175 

and repentance, but also the language found in the ease of Saul 
of Tarsus is in point. In this history we have his conversion 
reported. Ananias appears to him and says: "Brother 
Saul, why tarriest thou ? Arise, and be baptized, and wash 
away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." So we have 
it affirmed in Acts xxii. We find that many of the gentle- 
man's authorities teach precisely what we affirm upon this 
subject ; and right here, Baptistos, a passage that we quoted 
among other authorities, and that we shall quote before we 
shall have disposed of this question — right here, this authority 
says : "As regards ourselves, w T e immerse all applicants who 
confess their faith in Christ as the divine Son of God, and for 
the remission of sins. We believe nothing, simply because it 
is in the Baptist creed, or to be found in the writings of unin- 
spired men," Here this man affirms precisely w r hat we affirm 
upon this question, as regards baptism for salvation or for re- 
mission of sins. 

But, now, we ask you to consider the passage as found in 
Acts ii. 38, and what have we there presented ? We have 
these words — that when the inquiring multitude on the day 
of Pentecost, when they inquired: "Men and brethren" — 
having been pierced in the heart — " what shall we do ?" The 
answer of the apostle Peter is : " Repent, and be baptized every 
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of 
sins." Now, then, the apostle is acting under the great com- 
mission. Jesus gave the commission to the apostles, "Go 
preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and 
is baptized shall be saved, but tarry in the city of Jerusalem 
until you be endued with power from on high," and when the 
day of Pentecost was fully come, the Spirit descended upon 
the apostles to guide them into all truth, by w T hich they w T ere 
to be qualified to carry out this great commission, and now, 
under the influence of the Spirit, this vast multitude being 
pierced in their hearts, they cried out: " Men and "brethren 



176 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

what shall we do ?" Peter, in accordance with this great com- 
mission, guided by the Spirit of God, the Spirit that was to 
bring to their remembrance whatsover the Lord had com- 
manded, under the influence of the Spirit the apostles now 
say : " Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name 
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Peter must therefore 
have meant by "for the remission of sins," acting under this 
commission, precisely what Jesus meant, when he says : " He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Here, then, 
we have the design of baptism presented. In 1st Peter iii. 
18, we have also this same truth presented. Here we have 
these words : " For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the 
just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, and quick- 
ened by the Spirit : By which also he went and preached 
unto the spirits in prison ; Which sometime were disobedient, 
when once the long sufferings of God waited in the days of 
Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is 
eight, souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto 
even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the 
filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward 
God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" from the dead. 
Now, I will ask you to take all these passages as they are pre- 
sented, and what must be the conviction of your minds ? The 
commission says, if you believe and are baptized you shall be 
saved. Jesus says, you must be born of water and of the 
Spirit in order to enter the kingdom, and Ananias says to 
Saul of Tarsus : " Brother Saul why tarriest thou? Arise and 
be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of 
the Lord." Peter says, " repent, and be baptized every one 
of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." 
"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also save us." 
You take these passages, and I ask you, is it not as clearly 
presented as language can make this point, that the man that 
believes the gospel, with all his heart, repents of his sins and 



(Dr. Lucas' Eighth Address. 177 

submits to the authority of Jesus Christ in this institution, 
that the remission of sins is his to enjoy ? 

But, we desire to call your attention to the language of the 
apostle here, expressive of the design of repentance — [Time 
Expired.] 



ELDER RAY'S EIGHTH REPLY. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, and Re- 
spected Congregation : I again appear before you in the 
negative of the proposition. I am sorry my friend seems a 
little irritated and confused. I hope when he sleeps he will 
feel better. [Laughter,] In regard to his rule, again I quote 
as authority from Crosby's Greek Grammar, and that com- 
pletely sets aside his rule. The best Greek scholars known 
confess that they are troubled in regard to the use of the 
tenses. Here is the statement : " The future sometimes oc- 
curs for the present, or past tense, as a less distinct and posi- 
tive form of expression, or as though the action were not yet 
finished." In order to present something in the present the 
future tense is used. That is just what the gentleman's rule 
denied. Now, if he is a better Greek grammarian than 
Crosby, let him make a grammar and show wherein Crosby is 
wrong. Now, I hope he will not forget that I have exploded 
his rule, or say that I have not mentioned it. He is very 
forgetful sometimes. But, "ability is the measure of responsi- 
bility" Well, I suppose that the Pedobaptists are responsi- 
ble, and, therefore, according to the gentleman's rule, they 
can not be saved, unless they are immersed. I would like 
for the gentleman to give us the expression of his views upon 
that subject. 

But the prisoners, in prison, are they not responsible ? And 
putting them in prison, does that destroy their responsibility 
to repent of their sins and to seek Christ? Yet, the Dr. says 
the prisoners are saved without baptism ! I would like for the 



Elder (Ray's Eighth (Reply. 179 

gentleman to tell just exactly how they were saved, because 
he has advocated a diversity of plans of salvation. Here are 
men saved without baptism, and yet baptism is essential to 
salvation ! I do not think he can escape that very readily. 

But, then, succession is troubling him very much, and he 
refers to Benedict again. Well, I desire your attention to 
what Benedict says. The gentleman says I said I indorsed 
Benedict. Well, I don't think I said any such thing. I said, 
however, that I indorse the point that it was not essential that 
we should be able to prove from uninspired history the succession, 
in order to establish our church identity; but I affirm that the 
succession must exist, and that no church can be the church of 
Christ without it. It must exist. And Mr. Benedict affirms 
just here, that he believes that succession exists ; and he says : 
"The more I study the subject the stronger are my convic- 
tions, that if all the facts in the case could be disclosed, a 
very good succession could be made out." Now, my friend 
argues the question as though Mr. Benedict had said, " If 
these were the facts," but it is not so. He affirms the facts to 
exist, and that if they were disclosed, a succession, and a very 
good one, could be made out. He was not wrong upon that 
subject. He believes the facts do exist. Well, some men 
have paid more attention to that line of history than Mr. Bene- 
dict. Whether or not we will be able to trace a succession, or 
whether or not this man or that man can trace it, it matters 
not; but the succession must exist. The gentleman referred 
to another statement, that Benedict quoted from Robinson, 
and said, that is the statement of Benedict. Mr. Robinson 
had reference to the Papal, or Popish succession. That will 
come up more fully in the future, however ; but the Dr. gets 
off the subject time and again. He is very anxious to leave 
this proposition and get to recapitulating. I suppose he has 
gotten pretty well through with his materials. He has been 
writing his speeches and partly reading them to you ; and, 



180 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

now, he objects to my having my arguments arranged. I 
suppose they hurt the gentleman a little. But, I have called 
his people not exactly hyprocrites, but something of that sort. 
I know that the gentleman will not find any such expression 
in the report. On my part I did not use any such harsh 
terms, but I quoted stern and stubborn historical facts in re- 
gard to the foundation of his church, to show that the Dis- 
ciples have adopted a set of principles which are calculated to 
confuse the minds of the people. They have what they call 
the Bethany dialect, and they use a series of theological terms 
that mean one thing, while they believe another, therefore the 
people are confused as to what they do mean. I have ever 
contended that Alexander Campbell, when he restored " the 
pure speech " of Canaan, as he called it, should have made a 
dictionary in keeping with the language of Canaan. So that 
when the Disciples use the term "regeneration" we would 
know what they mean. Mr. Campbell meant baptism, when 
he said regeneration; when he said repentance to life, he meant 
baptism ; when he said change of heart, he meant change of 
views — an intellectual change ; and thus they have confused 
the minds of the people in reference to these matters. I will 
state, brethren, that the misfortune is that it is a system of 
contradictions, and though, otherwise, they would not be in- 
dividually chargeable with that hard name which he used. 
Yet the system is chargeable with that term — I mean that it 
contradicts itself. It allows ample room for all the errors in 
Christendom to come in and to be harbored in that church. 
In reference to Dr. Thomas, the gentleman says they repudiated 
him. When did they repudiate him ? After he held those 
errors, he debated them with Mr. Campbell, and it is said 
they mutually agreed to go on in co-operation with each other 
as brother reformers, knowing that Mr. Thomas held all those 
fearful heresies. He does not find any such condition of 
things among the Baptists. What the gentleman said about 



Elder (Ray's Eighth (Reply. 181 

the Baptist Church here, I say that has nothing at all at pres- 
ent to do with the question. If they have commenced taking 
in men without experience in this church, as my friend states 
they have done — without even requiring experience, that they 
take them in just as they do in the gentleman's church, then 
I will say, that this church, if they have clone that thing, 
erred in doing so. But I will wait for the development of the 
facts, I think, however, that it is a little out of place to 
bring in matters in regard to a private member, or members 
of the church in a place like this, unless the gentleman was 
fully informed as to the facts, and perhaps he has all the facts 
before him. But why don't I answer his arguments? Well, 
I thought I had been answering, but he has been speaking 
about this, that, and the other thing, and I endeavored to fol- 
low him. I did not take up my defense in regard to his argu- 
ment upon baptism, because he had not developed himself 
upon that subject. I wait for him to do so, and will pass on. 
I don't deny any passage of Scripture that he read, or that he 
read it correctly — not at all, but it is his interpretation that I 
deny. I agree with Paul, in the 10th chapter of Romans, 
where he says " faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the 
Word of God." "How shall they hear without a preacher? 
And how shall they preach, except they be sent." That is all 
correct. But, I deny that the word alone is all that is neces- 
sary in writing of the law of God upon the mind and heart of 
the individual. I do not take the w r ord alone. I make this 
statement, dear friends, that faith is said to work by love. 
Faith includes trust, and w T hen it is faith of the heart it is 
trust in Christ ; that a mere intellectual belief, or consent, or 
conviction, is not an adequate definition of faith. And that 
is about the amount of their definition. When the Disciples 
come to define faith, it is just simply to believe a thing to be 
true ; for instance, those demons believed and trembled, yet 
they hated Christ with all the hatred of demons. Wicked 



182 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

men believe that Jesus is the Son of God — that God is, and 
yet they hate God. They have not faith with the heart, and 
faith with heart embraces the affections, as found in Galatians 
v. 6 : " Faith which worketh by love." Now, the law is to be 
written in the mind and in the heart. I will read upon this 
subject, commencing at the 10th verse and 8th chapter of 
Hebrews : " For this is the covenant that I will make with the 
house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord ; I will put 
my laws into their mind, and w T rite them in their hearts : and 
I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people : 
And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every 
man his brother, saying, Know the Lord : for all shall know 
me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to 
their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will 
I remember no more." Thus showing that this law of God is 
to be written in the mind and in the heart. In the production 
of faith the evidence which is presented to the mind comes 
from hearing, receiving and understanding the Word of God, 
but the evidence that concerns the heart is the witness of the 
Spirit and is the love of God "shed abroad in the heart by the 
Holy Spirit" given to us. Then taking the Word as one evidence, 
or witness, and the love of God shed abroad in the heart by the 
Spirit as the other evidence, or witness ; upon these two evi- 
dences — witnesses — is built that faith which works by love, 
and purifies the heart. But the gentleman's church acts upon 
as faith before, and independent of repentance. They are 
wrong in regard to faith ; and they take simply the intellectual 
consent of the mind, instead of the faith that works by love 
and purifies the heart. I have produced testimony upon this 
subject which he has not denied, and I have still more. I 
have a great many quotations from Mr. Campbell, because 
sometimes the gentleman differs from all his brethren — from 
Mr. Lard, and all the writers of his church. He condemns 
them all, and sets up Dr. Lucas, as if he had become the 



Elder (Ray's Eighth (Reply. 183 

standard of the church. "O! that mine enemy had written a 
book," as one said in olden times. If he has become the 
standard of the church, I wish to know what is to be the doc- 
trine of the church hereafter. I understand the doctrine of 
the gentleman's church now, but if there is to be a revolution, 
if there is going to be any change from this time forth, I wish 
to find out what it is. 

But Mr. Campbell said in regard to baptism : " It is not our 
faith in God's promise of remission, but our going down into 
the water that obtains the remission of sins." But we have a 
quotation here to show that baptism is essential to the new birth, 
and I believe I will read one more testimony (Mr. Campbell's 
Christianity Restored, page 164), where he calls water the 
mother of Christians: "In these days of apostasy, men have 
sought out many inventions. Some have attempted to get 
into the kingdom of heaven without being born at all. Others 
imagine that they can be born of the Spirit without water, 
and that the King is as well pleased with them who have been 
born without a mother as those who are lawfully born of 
father and mother." 

That sounds like the Bethany dialect, calling water the 
"mother" of Christians. He says, again (Christianity Restored, 
page 243): "Down into the water you were led. Then the 
name of the Holy One upon your faith and upon your person 
was pronounced. You were then buried in the water under 
that name. It closed itself upon you. In its womb you were 
concealed. Into the Lord, as into the water, you were im- 
mersed. But in the water you continued not. Of it you 
were born, and from it you came forth, raised with Jesus, and 
rising in his strength. There your consciences were released, 
for there your old sins were washed away." 

I have thought that one reason why the Disciples put more 
stress upon baptism — water — than they do upon the Holy 
Spirit in conversion, is, because they claim water for their 



184 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

"mother," and children are likely to think most of their 
mother ; and, therefore, they give more attention to baptism, 
making that the turning point of salvation. 

But, to the argument that we have been presenting : We 
have in the commission, "He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved ;" and the Dr. says that I will say, he that is 
saved, and then is baptized, why, he shall be saved. But, 
again, we have Paul's sins washed away in baptism. You 
may say, Do you believe that? Certainly. "Arise, and be 
baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the 
Lord." And, again, " Repent, and be baptized, every one of 
you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." 
And, then, again, " The like figure whereunto even baptism 
doth also now save us ; not the putting away of the filth of 
the flesh," &c. I indorse whatever I find clearly revealed in 
God's Word. It seems that baptism is to wash away our sins ; 
that baptism is for the remission of sins — to wash away sins in 
some sense, either literally or emblematically. I will illus- 
trate it by the Lord's Supper. The Saviour said of the bread, 
" This is my body." Now, I hope the Dr. will not deny that 
statement. That bread, Dr. Lucas, is the body of Christ, 
either literally or emblematically. You will say emblematically, 
unless you go into the Church of Rome, according to your ar- 
gument, which seemed to point that way, the other night. 
That wine is called "the blood of Christ." How is the bread 
and the wine the body and blood of Christ ? either literally or 
emblematically. You will say emblematically. Well, now, 
is it true, literally ? Are sins really, literally, and actually 
washed away in baptism ? Do sins attach to the surface of 
the body, so that when the material element, water, comes in 
contact with material sins they are washed away literally? 
The Dr. will hardly take that position, I reckon. Then, if 
sins are not literally, physically, and tangibly washed away in 
baptism, how are they washed away ? Emblematically. This I 



Elder (Kay's Eighth (Reply. 185 

will indorse, that when we believe in Christ we have eternal 
life, and our sins are really pardoned ; then, we have the em- 
blematic washing away of sins in baptism. " He that belie v- 
eth and is baptized shall be saved" — really saved, through 
faith in Christ. Then, if we have the emblematic washing 
away of sins in baptism, it can not be the literal washing 
away of sins. The real washing must take place first, or you 
can not have the emblematic washing. Did you ever have 
the emblem of anything — the likeness of it — until that object 
existed in order to this emblem ? Suppose I say I have an 
emblem, a picture of my friend Dr. Lucas. Here it is. I 
might ask a little child in this congregation, three years of 
age, one who is acquainted with him, " Who is that?" " That 
is Dr. Lucas." Now, that child tells the truth. That is Dr. 
Lucas in emblem — not really, literally. Well, if another 
child was to say, "Yes; that is Dr. Lucas," literally, "that 
is the man himself." O, no! that would be a bad mistake; 
but no greater mistake than the gentleman's church has made 
in making the real washing away of sins in baptism. 

I call your attention to the fact, now, that John's baptism 
was just as much for the remission of sins as the baptism on the 
day of Pentecost. See Mark i. 4, where John preached " the 
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins ;" and, yet, 
every time sins were pardoned under the administration of 
Jesus, baptism was not known as a condition of that pardon. 
And the Saviour himself made disciples before he baptized 
them. According to the gentleman's definition of disciple, 
one is made a disciple, a child of God, when he is baptized 
into Christ. They were made disciples, and then baptized. 
I have quoted passage after passage showing that sins were 
pardoned during the personal ministry of Christ, independent 
of baptism. This baptism was not a condition of pardon, 
though baptism was said to be for the remission of sins. 

Now, the leprous man (by referring to Leviticus xiv.), the 



186 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

leprous person was separated from the congregation — outside 
of the camp : when the priest examined him every seventh 
day, and it was discovered that his leprousy was removed, 
then he was brought to the door of the tabernacle, and was 
ceremonially cleansed in the presence of the congregation. 
So the Saviour, in keeping with the same idea, said to that 
man, the leper, whom he had cleansed, " Go, show thyself to 
the priest, and offer for thy cleansing the things that Moses 
commanded." This shows that there was first the real cleans- 
ing, and then the formal cleansing. That is the point I wish 
to establish in this connection. 

But, then, I call you to John iii. 5 : " Except a man be 
born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the 
kingdom of God." - This is the passage about which there is a 
dispute. Some say that it has no reference whatever to baptism, 
and I am of that opinion. But there are others who say that 
it has reference to baptism — that after one is born of the 
Spirit, is a child of God, he must be " born of water," in 
order to membership in the visible church — making two births. 
I do not think that the best interpretation. But either way 
it does not help the gentleman's doctrine — not one particle, 
if it is baptism. But why did he introduce that, when he 
said there was no Christian baptism or kingdom at that time ? 
The Saviour was talking to Nicodemus in the present tense 
of what must occur nowf But the Dr. says that there was 
neither Christian kingdom nor Christian baptism ! The gen- 
tleman has introduced a passage that overturns all his argu- 
ments for the establishment of the kingdom on the day of 
Pentecost. Now, then, you have the Christian baptism and 
kingdom prior to Pentecost, according to your argument. 
Otherwise, you have introduced an argument that you knew 
to be irrelevant. Don't you see where you have placed your- 
self? No kingdom until Pentecost ! Yet the Saviour says, 
" Except a man be born again, he can not see the kingdom T 



Elder Ray's Eighth (Reply. 187 

He might be born forty times, and he could not see it, accord- 
ing to the gentleman's doctrine. " Except a man be born of 
water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom." 
The gentleman is mistaken in regard to the meaning, for "That 
which is born of the Spirit is spirit" — and if baptism is a part 
of that new birth of the Spirit, then that which is born again 
is flesh ! So the gentleman is certainly wrong. 

Well, on the day of Pentecost we have the argument that 
repentance and baptism are coupled together in order to pro- 
cure the remission of sins. I will call your attention to the 
fact that these two commands are not united together in order 
to procure the same result. Repentance — metanoesate — is a 
complete command in itself, and has a different nominative, is 
in a different number and person, and different voice from 
baptistheto, the word that is used to indicate baptism. That 
being so, whatever the remission of sins means, it is applied to 
baptism, and not connected with both verbs to secure the same 
result. You can not find a parallel case in the New Testa- 
ment that will justify that interpretation. 

Now, a passage or two in regard to the plan of salvation. 
The case of Abraham, that the Dr. said was pardoned, or 
justified, when he offered up his son Isaac. I wish your at- 
tention, especially, to the. 3d chapter of Galatians, 17th 
verse : "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed 
before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and 
thirty years after, can not disannul, that it should make the 
promise of none effect." That covenant, he will not deny, was 
the covenant of grace, confirmed to Abraham, four hundred 
and thirty years before the law. Isaac, his son, that was 
offered, was born four hundred years before the law. If my 
friend will study chronology, he will not deny this. That 
covenant was thirty years before the birth of Isaac, when 
Abraham believed in the Lord, and it was accounted to him 
for righteousness, as found in Genesis xv. 6. Then Abra- 



188 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

ham had the confirmation of the covenant forty odd years be- 
fore he was justified by works, when he offered Isaac, and if 
he was in the covenant of grace, he was a child of God, and 
his sins pardoned. There is no doubt about that. And this 
justification was such a justification — not in the sense of par- 
don — as every true follower of Christ may have in an act of 
strong faith and obedience. Abraham showed his faith by 
his works ; it could not be justification in the sense of pardon. 
But let us look again, Rom, iv. 9-11 : "Cometh this blessed- 
ness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircum- 
cision also ? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham 
for righteousness. How was it then reckoned ? when he was 
in circumcision, or in uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision, 
but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circum- 
cision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet 
being uncircumcised : that he might be the father of all them 
that believe, though they be not circumcised ; that righteous- 
ness might be imputed unto them also." Before his circum- 
cision he received that righteousness of faith — pardon. The 
circumcision took place nearly twenty years before the time 
he offered up Isaac ; and yet, he had been justified by faith in 
the sight of God, before his circumcision. [Time Expired.] 



53fourfh ®venin$. 






DR. LUCAS' NINTH ADDRESS. 



Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: In 
the providence of Him upon whom we are dependent for all 
things, we are together again to call your attention to some 
things that we propose to submit in connection with the 
proposition that we have affirmed in relation to the kingdom 
of the Messiah. Before we proceed with our argument, we 
propose to call your attention to some points presented by my 
friend in his last reply, and first, I wish to refer to his expo- 
sition of John iii. 5. He stated that this portion of Scripture 
can not bear upon the proposition which it was introduced to 
prove — namely, baptism in connection with faith and repent- 
ance ; that it can not in any way prove the truth of that 
proposition, from the fact that this language was spoken be- 
fore — according to my proposition — the kingdom of Jesus was 
established. We state that this portion of Scripture had a 
future bearing, and was prospective in its character just pre- 
cisely as the great commission given to the apostles, and many 
other portions of Scripture, to which we might call your at- 
tention. When Jesus said to the Disciples, "Go preach the 
gospel to every creature ; he that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved," and, while he gave this commission, he called 
upon them and required them to remain in Jerusalem until 



190 (Disciples' Church Claims, 

they were endued with power from on High ; until they were 
qualified by the descent of the Holy Spirit, to carry out his 
will as embodied in that great commission. But, in order to 
narrow the argument upon this subject down to a point, if you 
please, that we can all comprehend, I will state, that I am 
perfectly willing to leave the issue now before us to the 
proper interpretation of Acts ii. 38 ; that while there are other 
passages which I regard as bearing directly on my proposition, 
I am perfectly willing to risk the whole issue of this question 
of baptism and the remission of sins, upon the proper inter- 
pretation of Acts ii. 38, in connection with the great com- 
mission given to the apostles by the Saviour. The Spirit of 
God was to guide the apostles into all truth, and bring to their 
remembrance whatsoever the Lord commanded them, and 
this great commission was to be the rule of their action. On 
the day of Pentecost, after the ascension of the Saviour, w T e 
find the apostles preached for the first time under this com- 
mission. I presume the gentleman will concede the truth of 
the statement, that the apostles, being guided by the influ- 
ence of the Spirit of God, on that occasion, that Peter pre- 
sented to that people just what is embraced in the great com- 
mission, so far as baptism is concerned. Peter must have 
preached to that people on baptism as well as on other points, 
just what was presented in that commission. But, we stated, 
on last evening, in order that the gentleman be in harmony 
with the commission, that it should read differently from what 
it does, as he affirms that none but those who are Christians, 
the pardoned, the saved from sin, the justified, and the ac- 
cepted of the Father in the beloved, should be baptized ; that 
that commission should read : " He that believeth and is saved 
shall be baptized." But that is not the reading of the com- 
mission. It reads : " He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved."* Faith and baptism then stand this side of the sal- 
vation presented to our view, and as this was the commission 



(br. Lucas' JVinth Address. 191 

by which the apostles were to be governed and were to be 
controlled, when the apostle Peter said : " Eepent, and be 
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the 
remission of sins," he had baptism this side of that remission, 
or salvation. This, we say, must be true, for the apostle was 
governed by the commission that the Lord gave to him. 

We propose noticing this 2d chapter of Acts further in a few 
moments. We desire to notice some other points presented by 
the gentleman. He refers our minds to the case of the prison- 
ers again, where it was utterly impossible for them to be bap- 
tized. They had faith, and were willing to do all in their 
power to obey God ; but, then, they had no ability. They had 
no power to obey God, from the fact of their being incarcer- 
ated in prison, and the authorities prevented them from sub- 
mitting to this ordinance. They could not render this obedi- 
ence. In connection with this case, we submit the proposition 
to which we have already referred, that ability is the measure 
of responsibility, and we state, that the infant child is not held 
responsible before God as is the father or the mother. The infant 
child is not held responsible before the law, or in the sight of 
God, as is that individual who has arrived at the years of re- 
sponsibility, and it is not required to obey the law as is the 
father. It is not required to obey the gospel, because it has 
no such power. It is not condemned because it does not obey 
the gospel ; neither is it condemned because it does not obey 
the laws of the land. Here again, then, we say that the truth 
of our proposition is recognized, that ability is the measure of 
responsibility ; and whenever the gentleman shows that the 
individual that is the subject of gospel address (and we are 
talking of persons of that class in this discussion) has no 
power to do this or that, then we say there is no responsibility 
in that particular case ; and we present again our proposition, 
that ability is the measure of responsibility. 

But he referred to the word " alone" again, as simply intel- 



192 (Disciples 7 Church Claims. 

lectual faith. Well, we have presented our views on that 
subject, and we have presented them in the language of the 
Word of God. The position occupied by my brethren, as a 
body, as a church, is well known, that there is no faith of any 
value at all that has not in its embrace not only the intellect, 
but the affections of the heart. He that believeth with all the 
heart has that faith, and only he has the faith that the gospel 
requires. Consequently, the gentleman is entirely outside of 
this investigation when he talks about merely intellectual faith. 
For I submit this proposition, that neither he himself, nor 
any member of his church ever did, ever can, ever will believe 
the gospel with more than all the heart! For this faith, 
and nothing less than this, do we contend. But, the law is 
written in the mind, and in the heart, referring to the cove- 
nant quoted from the Old Testament Scriptures in Hebrews 
by Paul. Well, we believe every word of that ; consequently, 
we shall not occupy your time in discussing a question of that 
kind. There is not a single syllable there presented but what 
we believe as firmly, as fully, and as heartily as my friend, or 
any other being upon the footstool of God. 

But, in regard to the cleansing of the leper, he says, again, 
Jesus had cleansed him, but, according to the ceremonial law 7 , 
he was not cleansed ; but he was to offer for his cleansing ac- 
cording to that ceremonial law, according to the command of 
Moses. Now, I did hot really here get his point ; I did not 
fully understand whether he meant to say that he was to go 
and offer for his cleansing — that is, because he was cleansed — 
or whether he understands the preposition here employed, "in 
order to ;" whether it is "in order to," or " because of;" con- 
sequently, I wait for him to make this point more clear. In 
regard to the Acts of the Apostles, also, when it is said " Re- 
pent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
Christ for the remission of sins," when he shall have defined 



(Dr. Lucas' Ninth Address. 193 

his position fully upon this question, then we shall give it our 
attention. 

But he refers to Abraham, again, and quotes from Romans, 
where Paul speaks of Abraham being justified by faith, and 
his faith being imputed unto him for righteousness. Well, 
now, we want to present for your consideration what the in- 
spired James says upon this subject, and surely the apostle 
James is equal authority with that of Paul. But the apostle 
James presents the matter in a clearer light, if possible, than 
that of Paul, and we show that he refers to the very same 
thing, by language that can not be misunderstood. In the 2d 
chapter of James' letter, commencing at the 20th verse : " But 
wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is 
dead ?" And I might address this very language of the in- 
spired apostle to my friend. " Wilt thou know, O vain man, 
that faith without works is dead ? Was not Abraham our 
father justified by works, w T hen he had offered Isaac his son 
upon the altar ? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, 
and by works was faith made perfect? And the Scripture 
was fulfilled." What Scripture ? Why, the very Scripture 
quoted by Paul, the very Scripture to which the gentleman 
invited your attention. "And the Scripture was fulfilled 
which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto 
him for righteousness/' The Scripture was fulfilled which 
said, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him 
for righteousness. Fulfilled when ? Why, when Abraham's 
faith was made perfect by offering his son Isaac upon the 
altar. This is the language of James the apostle upon the 
very same subject, and it is so plain that it needs no comment 
to make it plainer. 

With these remarks we desire to call your attention now to 
Acts ii. 38, where Peter responds to the inquiring Pente- 
costians, "repent, and be baptized every one of you in the 



194 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." First, we 
take the language as it is here presented, and see what idea 
this language conveys to the mind. We have here two com- 
mands, repent and be baptized, and the design expressed is for 
the remission of sins ; but, suppose that baptism is not in the 
passage at all, that there is but one command, and that 
command is "repent," and we say "Repent, every one of you 
in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Now, 
no one will have any difficulty in understanding the point pre- 
sented by the apostle, every one will see at once that the indi- 
vidual is called upon to repent in order that he may receive and 
enjoy the remission of sins, not because his sins had been remit- 
ted, but that they may be remitted. Now, we will suppose 
there is no repentance in the passage at all, and we take up the 
passage and quote baptism. We leave the first part of the 
sentence out, and we say, " Be baptized every one of you in the 
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Now, there is 
but one change, the change of the one word " baptism" instead 
of " repentance ;" " Be baptized every one of you in the name 
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Now, what does it 
mean ? Well, says one, it means because your sins are par- 
doned that nobody but the Christian, the pardoned individual, 
is called upon to be baptized ; consequently, it means now, " be 
baptized, because your sins are pardoned ;" yet, the very sen- 
tence, or part of the expression, that conveys the design had 
in view in the command, is just precisely as it w T as before. 
But, now, " Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the 
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Now, Avhat 
does it mean when merely repentance ? It means that you 
might receive the remission of sins. When repentance was 
dropped and baptism was the command, it means because 
your sins are pardoned, as none but a Christian has the right 
to be baptized. Now T , when repentance and baptism are con- 
nected by the conjunction " Repent, and be baptized every 



/Dr. Lucas' .Ninth ^Address. 195 

one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of 
sins," then, we ask, what does the passage mean thus expressed ? 
Does it mean both, "because .of" and "in order that" you 
may receive the remission of sins ? Does it mean these two 
opposite ideas ? Are these two opposing ideas expressed by 
the very same words, in the very same sentence, in the very 
same connection. Now, we ask you to stop and think seriously 
upon this question. 

But, then, my friend says that the design, as expressed by 
els a<ffsffcu a/iapTuw, that it has no reference here to repentance, 
but that it expresses the design connected with the command 
to "be baptized," and the reason of this is, he says, that re- 
pentance is here in the second person, imperative and plural 
in number. Well, we agree upon that — we have no contro- 
versy so far as the grammar of the word is concerned — that is, 
so far as its grammatical position in the sentence is concerned. 
It is imperative of the second person plural in number — there 
is no mistake about that. But, then, the second command, 
he says, is imperative of the third person and singular in num- 
ber. Well, that is true. We have no controversy with re- 
gard to that ; but, now, as we have here two commands, the 
one of the second person and plural, and the other of the third 
person singular — that they do not have the same subject, and, 
therefore, the design as expressed for the remission of sins, 
can not refer to both of these commands. This, I understand 
to be the argument of my friend on this passage, and this is 
the argument put forth, by Mr. Williams, in his examination 
of this passage, and who has also written a work upon Camp- 
bellism, as well as my friend. This is his position, and what- 
ever credit there may be in it, my friend is not entitled to it, 
for he has borrowed it from Mr. Williams, and, in his little 
work on Campbellism, he gives Mr. Williams the credit of 
this criticism. But Mr. Williams never regarded himself as 
a scholar, and no one else ever regarded him as such. I am 



196 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

perfectly astonished that my friend should adopt this criticism, 
especially while he has what may be regarded as good and 
safe counsel in Greek criticism. Now, I state this, that so far 
as this passage is concerned, though the one verb is of the 
second person, plural, imperative ; and the other of the third 
person, singular, imperative ; that they are frequently joined 
together for the purpose of securing, if you please, the one 
result, or leading to the one definite end. There is a rule that 
bears directly upon this question, and I will read you the rule 
as presented by Kuhner's Greek Grammar — one that stands 
as high as any other work in all this country. On page 309 
we have this rule : " The second person, imperative, instead of 
the third, is sometimes connected with the indefinite pronoun 
rt<; or 7ia<; rtq, and even with a substantive and tig, and 
hence, also, the transition of the third person to the second. " 
Here, then, w r e have this rule, as presented by a grammar of 
the very highest authority. And now we give you a case. 
We have a number here, taken from the classics, and we give 
you now a case from Euripides, Bacchae, as found inverse 
173 : " Let some one go and announce that Teiresias is seeking 
him." Here, then, is a sentence. We state that "let some 
one go" (Jtw) is imperative and of the third person, and " an- 
nounce " {iiffdyyeXke) is imperative and second person. Here, 
then, we have these two verbs — one of the second person, im- 
perative, and the other of the third person, imperative, and 
both are employed in this sentence in order to accomplish a 
definite and single end. But we give you another case in 
Euripides, found in this play, presented in verses 346 and 350 : 
"Let some one go quickly, and having arrived at the seats of 
this one, where he is accustomed to observe the flight of birds, 
overturn them " — that is the seats, not birds — " and set them 
up inversely, and scatter his garlands, or fillets, to the winds 
and storms." 

Now, here we have presented of Euripides, in this play 



(Dr. Lucas' Ninth ^Address. 197 

"let some one go," (7T£t%£Tw, imperative, third person ; "over- 
turn," Tptaivoo, imperative, second person; and "set up/' 
avdcTpeipov, imperative, second person; and " scatter," trans- 
lated from pities, imperative, second person singular. Here, 
then, we have these verbs in the same sentence used in order 
to accomplish the one result and one end; and here we 
have the third person imperative, and the second person im- 
perative, used as in the passage to which reference has already 
been made, used expressive of the one design, one intent, and, 
in this form presented, it simply tends to make the require- 
ment or the instruction more intensified in its nature — if pos- 
sible, to make it stronger than being presented in another 
form. And we w T ould say, if we had the time to thoroughly 
investigate this matter, we have no doubt but, in the language 
of Benedict, when he speaks of the succession, "that a very 
good succession could be made out, if we only had the facts." 
If we had the facts of the case, a very good succession could 
be made out, and so we say that we think that if we had 
time to investigate this matter thoroughly, that we might find 
other passages in the New Testament Scriptures where these 
verbs are similarly used. [Time Expired.] 



ELDER RAY'S NINTH REPLY. 



Brother Moderators and Eespected Audience: It 
does seem that my worthy friend can not comprehend the po- 
sition of Mr. Benedict. He affirmed, just as he sat down, 
that Mr. Benedict said, " that if we had the facts, a succession 
could be made out," That is not the statement of Mr. Bene- 
dict. He said, "if the facts were developed," recognizing 
that the facts exist. But he goes for his examples to the 
classic Greek of Euripides, but fails to give the result to 
be obtained in the case where he thinks he finds parallel 
examples to Acts ii. 38. I wait for him to develop his posi- 
tion upon those criticisms. 

I wish your attention to the speech in order. John iii. 5 : 
"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can 
not enter into the kingdom of God." He said this had a 
prospective, future bearing, and there was no Christian bap- 
tism, no kingdom yet set up. The Saviour spoke that lan- 
guage to Nicodemus, " Except a man be born of water and of 
the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom;" and,, in the 
10th verse, he reproved Nicodemus for not understanding this 
subject : " Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these 
things ?" Then, if the Dr.'s position is correct, that there was 
no kingdom, and no baptism, the Saviour made a mistake in 
reproving Nicodemus for ignorance on the subject. So, ac- 
cording to his own position, he has lost his question, and is 
willing to give that up, as far as the present discussion is con- 
cerned, and stake it all on the 2d chapter of Acts. But I 



Elder (Ray's Ninth (Reply. 199 

want your attention to the fact that these two commands are 
not associated together to obtain the same result. If so, he 
can not find a parallel example in the New Testament. In 
the 3d chapter of Acts, 19th verse, they are commanded to 
" Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may 
be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from 
the presence of the Lord." Here we find the two verbs with 
the very same construction throughout, with the same nomi- 
native, and so where it is commanded for them to repent and 
turn to God. Let him find his examples in God's Word, 
given by the Holy Spirit. I come to examine now, in con- 
nection with this, the passage in the 10th chapter of the Acts 
of the Apostles, the same apostle preaching. He said to him, 
that is, to Christ, at the house of Cornelius (10th ch., 43d 
v.), "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his 
name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of 
sins/' The gentleman can not find a prophet giving testimony 
to baptism as a condition of pardon. Peter, after the day of 
Pentecost, appeals to the prophets for the plan of salvation 
that he preached on that occasion, and referring to that occa- 
sion, in Acts xv. 9, he said that God " put no difference be- 
tween us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." Show- 
ing, then, that as there was no difference, and in this case all 
who believed received remission of sins, then on the day of 
Pentecost they received remission of sins through faith in 
Christ, and then the washing away of sins in baptism was 
only declarative, or emblematical. 

But notice, again, the 44th verse: "While Peter yet 
spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which 
heard the word. And they of the circumcision which be- 
lieved were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because 
that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy 
Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and mag- 
nify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, 



200 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

that these should not be baptized, which have received the 
Holy Ghost as well as we ? And he commanded them to be 
baptized in the name of the Lord." Thus showing that these 
original converts received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, 
spoke with tongues, and magnified God. All this occurred 
before they were baptized ; and the prophecy concerning the 
gift of the Holy Spirit testifies that this Spirit was to be 
poured out upon God's servants and upon his handmaids — 
showing positively that the original converts were the servants 
of God before baptism. They had the baptism of the Holy 
Spirit, and were able to speak with tongues that they never 
learned before, and yet we are told they were unpardoned, 
unconverted sinners ! 

Again, we call your attention now to Gal. iii. 6: " Even 
as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for 
righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of 
faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the 
Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen 
through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, say- 
ing, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which 
be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." Here the 
apostle emphatically teaches that believers are the children of 
Abraham, and he classes them with him when they have the 
same character of faith that Abraham had; but if baptism 
is a condition of pardon, then they were not pardoned as 
Abraham was, because baptism was not a condition of pardon 
to Abraham. Then they can not be the children of Abra- 
ham by faith ; they can not be saved upon the same plan as 
Abraham was. The justification of Abraham by faith, as we 
read last night, and as the report will show, was while he was 
in uncircumcision, before the time of the birth of Isaac, con^ 
sequently, long before the time that he offered Isaac upon the 
altar. I wonder if the gentleman understands that Abraham's 
sins were pardoned, and that he became a convert for the first 



Elder (Ray's Ninth (Reply. 201 

time when he offered Isaac. If this was the plan of salva- 
tion, by offering a man's son, according to the old dispensation, 
and as Abraham was the only man that did so, then he is the 
only man saved, according to the gentleman's idea. Remark- 
ably strong notion, it seems to me. Then, what is meant by 
the justification of Abraham, when he offered Isaac ? It is 
infallibly certain that Abraham was justified by faith forty 
years before that occurrence, because in the 3d chapter of 
Galatians, 17th verse, we find that the covenant was con- 
firmed of God in Christ four hundred and thirty years before 
the law, and this was twenty-nine years before the covenant 
of circumcision, and thirty years before the birth of Isaac, 
and more than forty years before he offered Isaac on the altar. 
But, again, Ave have the testimony of God's Word, John iii., 
commencing with the 14th verse : "And as Moses lifted up the 
serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be 
lifted up : That whosoever belie veth in him should not per- 
ish, but have eternal life ;" showing clearly that the believer 
in Christ — on that one lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent 
— possesses eternal or everlasting life. This is clear. It is as 
positive as language can make it ; and if he has this belief 
before baptism, he possesses eternal life before baptism: 
and if he possesses that eternal life before baptism, his sins 
are pardoned before baptism. But, tc escape this difficulty, 
the gentleman took the position, in a former discussion, that 
baptism was an element of faith, and embraced in it. Then, 
if that be so, when one believes with all his heart, he has al- 
ready been baptized — that is, he is baptized because he is bap- 
tized — would be the absurdity of his argument. Then, we 
have the example, as already given, of the salvation or par- 
don of the thief upon the cross, and of the publican, under 
the administration of Christ. But he says this was before the 
«day of Pentecost, and when he does that he rejects that part 
of the New Testament from his creed. Then, again, I have 



202 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

already quoted upon this subject, I believe, John v. 24, that 
whosoever believeth on him " hath everlasting life, and shall 
not come into condemnation ; but is passed from death unto 
life." 

I now pass (as I believe I have answered the argument 
of the gentleman) to my negative argument. He is trying 
to prove that the church with which he stands identified, 
the present organization, is the visible church, or kingdom 
of Jesus Christ. I deny this, because it teaches the doctrine, 
I will say the Papish doctrine, of church salvation ; that out of 
the church there is no salvation ; that in the church men are 
saved, and that the church has thejpower to save or damn men 
by taking them in or keeping them out. I read Millennial 
Harbinger, vol. 5 — and before the commencement of the read- 
ing let me explain. The gentleman complained because 
I read so much from his authors, and he is afraid that my 
part of the book will not appear so well as his. He is 
disposed to praise his part and condemn mine. He is wel- 
come to do all the boasting of that kind, because I think 
it is necessary for his case under the circumstances. At least he 
thinks so. But I have not so much vanity as to wish nothing 
in the book except what I have said myself. I want it to 
stand as a storehouse of proof texts, settling the doctrine of 
the gentleman's church. As I have written heretofore upon 
the subject, and some have, by the wholesale, denounced my 
works, and have asserted that these quotations are not correct, 
I wanted a representative man (which I now have) to stand 
before me, and if I made a quotation which is not correct, or 
an incorrect application, he will correct me, and I intend that 
these quotations shall stand for future years, and perhaps for 
future generations. 

Now, I will read Millennial Harbinger, vol. 5, p. 374: 
"There is not one voice heard in all the world outside of the- 
boundaries of the present reformation, calling upon the people 



■Elder (Ray's Ninth (Reply. 203 

to return to the original gospel and order of things ." They con- 
tend that no man can be saved without the original gospel and 
order of things. Outside their own church there are no men 
that preach that gospel. Thus, no man can be saved under the 
preaching of any gospel but the disciples, according to his po- 
sition and argument. 

Again, Mr. Campbell, on baptism, p. 257, says : " As we have 
then but one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, and that baptism 
is 'for the remission of sins' — to give us through faith and repent- 
ance, a solemn pledge and assurance of pardon — any other 
baptism is a human invention, and of no value ; wanting, as 
it does, the sanction of the Lord Jesus, who ordained it." 
This shows, that unless baptism has the proper design, it has 
no value. Then, those that have been baptized among the 
Baptists without the design that they advocate, and have gone 
over to them without baptism, I will state, according to this 
position, are still unpardoned ; they are still in their sins and 
in their gore. 

But he got a little pressed last night, and made a personal 
allusion to somebody that had been received into this church 
without rebaptism, and without a Christian experience. Well, 
dear friends, I know this, that Baptists do not usually do 
this, and I do not suppose they did here. We receive 
no one that has not professed the love of God shed abroad in 
his heart. But, I make this remark, in connection with the 
case he referred to, that I hope the Dr. will chastise any 
Baptists that are inconsistent in receiving the administrations 
of his church. I do not do it, and have never done so, and, 
until my mind changes, I do not propose to do so. But, some 
of the brethren differing slightly upon this point, have, in 
some cases, received members, and especially when they pro- 
fessed that this conversion was before baptism, and w T hen they 
were getting, as they regarded, a good member — one that was 
the cream, as it were, of the gentleman's church ! But they have 



204 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

acted inconsistently in this. But, in the country where I live, 
I know it to be a fact, that if one gets turned out of the Bap- 
tist Church for bad conduct, and the Disciples can get him to 
join their church, they think they have got a sweet morsel — 
just on their baptism too, after they have been excluded for 
immoral conduct. I do not think we do it as often as they 
do. If we do, we ought not. 

But I read, again, from Christian Baptist, p. 521 : "Knowing 
that the efficacy of this blood is to be communicated to our 
consciences in the way which God has pleased to appoint, we 
stagger not at the promise of God, but flee to the sacred ordi- 
nance which brings the blood of Jesus in contact with our 
consciences. Without knowing and believing this, immersion 
is as empty as a blasted nut, The shell is there, but the 
kernel is wanting." This shows that, according to Mr. Camp- 
bell, unless they believe at the very time that baptism brings 
the blood of Christ in contact with their consciences, then bap- 
tism is invalid. What becomes of those that went out from the 
Baptists in early times and joined the Disciples upon Baptist 
immersion ? Just as certain as the doctrine as here read is 
true, they are in their sins, and in their blood, and ought to 
be baptized for the remission of their sins, according to the 
gentleman's doctrine. 

Millennial Harbinger, vol. 5, p. 251, Mr. Campbell says : 
"I do, indeed, contend for the restoration of the original gospel 
and order of things, and do think that no sect in Christendom 
has the one or the other." They are the only denomination 
on earth, according to their testimony, that has the original 
gospel or order of things. I wish to quote one other extract. 
Mr. Lipscomb — Gospel Advocate for 1867, p. 770 — says : 
"No church founded by man can give immortality to its 
members, because it can not bestow what it does not possess. 
God founded a church that will stand forever, ' that the gates 
of hell shall not prevail against.' That one church alone can 



Elder fRay's Ninth (Reply. 205 

give immortality to its members, because it, having received 
it from its immortal founder, can impart it to every member of 
the body." I will state here, dear friend, that the triple- 
crowned tyrant that sits upon the seven-hilled city, scarcely 
ever uttered a more obnoxious sentiment in regard to his own 
power than that the church can give immortality to every 
member that joins it. The church can not do it ; and I will 
state here, there is but one name given among men whereby 
we must be saved, and that is the name of the holy child 
Jesus. His church gives immortality ! Remember, dear 
friends, that Mr. Campbell was the founder of the gentleman's 
church — the " Christian Church," so called ; and if salvation 
is alone in that church, if it had not been for Mr. Campbell my 
friend never could have been saved — could not reach heaven ; 
his church would not have existed. Consequently, in that 
sense, Mr. Campbell becomes the disciple, savior, and their 
deliverer. I know they sometimes attempt to repudiate him, 
but then again they honor him very highly. I have here Mr. 
Lard's Quarterly for 1866, and, on p. 306, Mr. Bartholomew 
takes the ground (the quotation is too long to read) that Mr. 
Campbell was prophesied of in Rev. x. 9, where John w T as 
called on to take "the little book" out of the hand of the 
angel, and he ate it up and it was sweet in his mouth and bit- 
ter in his "belly " — stomach. He said this foretold Alexander 
Campbell ; that he was to take the Bible and eat it up, and that 
Mr. Campbell was the one that unloosed the seven seals of the 
sealed book, and has preached it to the nations. He repre- 
sents Alexander Campbell as the lion of the tribe of reformers, 
and as having eaten up the book, and it made him bitter ; 
and that is the reason he said so many bitter things against 
those who oppose him, I reckon, because it made him bitter. 
And yet the Dr. can repudiate Mr. Campbell just as he 
pleases. 

I will read a statement here from Bro. Tavlor's book — a 



206 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

quotation from Mr. D. P. Henderson, p. 46 — as follows : " Bap- 
tism is the central link in the chain of p&rdon — the last of the 
series which brings us to the everlasting kingdom." — Quoted 
from p. 42, tract, Christian Baptism. Showing that not only 
Mr. Campbell, but nearly all — yes, all of the Disciples, more 
or less — contended for baptismal salvation. But, then, I will 
state that I never found one but what admitted that one may 
be saved without it ! And yet they do not teach two plans of 
salvation! The Dr. has the prisoners saved without baptism. 
Mr. Campbell admitted that Pedobaptists might be saved 
without baptism. Also, according to his rule of responsi- 
bility — ability being the measure of responsibility — the Dr. must 
contend that the heathen are saved, and lost without bap- 
tism. Then he will have three, or four, or perhaps five plans 
of salvation ! 

My friend said that Jesus had a right to save men as he 
pleased while on earth, but now he has given us the law of 
pardon. I will state that the Son of God, having all the 
power in heaven and on earth, has the same power now that he 
ever had. He never pardoned men at any time contrary to 
his plan of pardon ; and I will affirm that he never had two 
plans of pardon — never. There is one God and one mediator, 
and one plan of salvation ; and the plan that saved Abel will 
save the last sinner that is ever saved through the blood of 
the everlasting covenant. 

But the Dr. does not answer my questions that I have put 
to him with so much earnestness : 

1. I ask him if any one can be saved out of the church t 

2. Was the baptism administered by Christ through the apostles, 
Christian baptism f 

3. Wlien did the original church become extinct f 

4. When was the kingdom set up a second time t 

5. Who set up the kingdom a second time f 



Elder (Ray's JVinth (Reply. 207 

6. How did men become children of God when there was no 
kingdom f 

7. How are Pedobaptists saved t 

8. Wliat were the terms of pardon to those prisoners that were 
saved 1 

9. Where is the name " Christian Church" found in the Bible f 
I wish to call this congregation to witness that the gentleman 

will not answer tJiese questions ; and I suppose he has a pretty 
good reason for it, because it can not be done according to his 
principles. He will lose his position if he attempts to answer 
these questions that I have placed before him. 

But I wish to give you another statement or two in regard 
to faith. Mr. Campbell (Christian Baptism, p. 69) says : 
" There is but one way of believing any testimony, human or 
divine, and that is, to admit it to be true." Yet, the Dr. 
talks about faith with the heart, and moral elements of faith f 
Did not the demons admit that Jesus Christ was the Son of 
God? Did not sinners throughout all the land, unpardoned 
and impenitent sinners, admit that Jesus is the Son of the 
living God ? Is this the faith t Is that all there is in faith ? 
Mr. Lard says, in his confession of faith, in his creed, art. 6 
(Quarterly for 1867, p. 345), " that faith and belief are iden- 
tical ; that faith is the simple conviction that what the Bible 
says is true ; and that the notion of various kinds of faith is 
false." This shows that it is simply the confession or admis- 
sion that the Bible is true ; that it is all the faith the Disci- 
ples demand of the candidate ; and when he has no doubt 
about that, they call that believing w r ith the heart. The Dis- 
ciples do not understand that the Holy Spirit has moved and 
changed the heart from hatred to love, when they say, " be- 
lieving with the heart" — not a word of it. It is simply there 
by the word alone. Gospel Preached, p. 41, Mr. Franklin's 
book — he says : " The belief, then, with the whole heart, 



208 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

that God raised him, amounts to the same as the belief that 
he is the Christ, the Son of the living God." That is all of 
the believing with the whole heart — simply that Jesus is the 
Christ. Admitting that Jesus is the Christ, according to this 
testimony, is believing with the whole heart ! 

The Reformation is not, then, the church of Christ, because 
it denies the gospel faith, that faith with the heart. That 
faith that purifies the hearts of men is essential to church 
membership. The Disciples would not refuse one that has 
heart faith, if he comes ; they will take in almost all sorts of 
doctrine into their church, if the individual will believe that 
Jesus is the Son of God, and be immersed. They will re- 
ceive Dr. Thomas, with his errors ; they will receive a Uni- 
versalist, with his errors ; and they will receive a Unitarian, 
with his errors. I would like to call the gentleman's atten- 
tion, as I close, to what Benedict says in regard to his church, 
inasmuch as he is so fond of calling our attention to Benedict, 
page 916: " Campbellites, or Reformers. — Bev. Alexan- 
der Campbell, who, I believe is admitted on all hands to be the 
Corypheus of this very wide-spread community, is a native of 
Scotland, where he was educated among the Pedobaptists. ,, 
Here, then, he says that Mr. Campbell was their leader — ad- 
mitted to be so. The gentleman says that Benedict is one of 
the best historians in the world : no sort of doubt about that. 
Then, according to his own witness, Benedict settles the ques- 
tion, that instead of Christ being the leader of the gentle- 
man's church, Mr. Campbell is the leader. [Time Expired.] 



DR. LUCAS' TENTH ADDRESS. 



Gentlemen Moderatoks, Ladies and Gentlemen : As 
the Scriptures say, " The first shall be last, and the last first," 
I will give you a verification of the truth, so far as order is 
concerned, by examining the gentleman's speech, the last of 
it first. With regard to Benedict, the gentleman says that I 
said he is one of the best historians in the world. The gen- 
tleman is just simply mistaken. I said he is one of the best 
Baptist historians. But the gentleman now appeals to Bene- 
dict. Last night he quoted Jeter. For what ? Why, to tell 
just what we believe, and what we do not believe. Jeter is a 
professed enemy, and has written a work against Alexander 
Campbell. Mr. Benedict is a Baptist, and I will venture to 
say, if my friend had called upon his little book to testify, 
that it would have said some hard things against us, too. 
But the gentleman brings up Baptists that are professedly 
writing against our people to prove this, that, and the other ; 
and I will just simply say to the gentleman, that they are not 
authority in this case, Jeter has written a book, and my 
friend has written a book, and Brother Taylor has written a 
little book that he has quoted to-night on Campbellism, and 
Brother Williams has written a book ; and they have all been 
trying to kill what they call the Campbellites. But there is 
one peculiar trait in regard to the cause that they propose to 
kill, that the more they kill it, the more it will not die. That 
is the result of all these efforts. But, to the gentleman's ques- 
tions : He brings out a long string of questions. I might 
ask him a great many questions. But he has not shown that 



210 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

his questions have any bearing on the proposition, to settle it 
one way or the other. I might answer it this way, or that 
way. I might say to the gentleman, I can not answer them 
at all. I might give any of these answers ; still, it would 
have no bearing on this proposition whatever ; and I am per- 
fectly willing he shall just add to the number as many more, 
and then they may go into the book that we expect to make 
up on this discussion, and there they may stand unanswered. 
I am perfectly willing, so far as these questions are concerned, 
unless, he can show that they legitimately bear upon the 
proposition that we are discussing. They have nothing at all 
to do with it, except for the gentleman to keep up a kind of 
appearance, as the boy did when he went whistling by the 
graveyard. 

But he referred to the individual last night that the Bap- 
tists had received into their church that they did not baptize 
over again. I simply say that the gentleman is mistaken 
again. I said that the Baptist Church had received individ- 
uals into their church from the Christian Church. I gave no 
names at all ; but I said that the Baptist Church received in- 
dividuals, and I say several of them, where they demanded 
no experience, and they did not rebaptize them. Yet, the 
gentleman said, in his discussion at Canton, that he did not 
regard our baptism as baptism at all. " It was not baptism/' 
he said ; and hence he objected to the language "rebaptized," 
" because," said he, "they have never been baptized." Hence, 
the gentleman has members in his church, having the privi- 
leges of the church, and of the Lord's table, that he says 
have never been baptized. Then, why do not you let your 
Methodist brethren in also, and let them commune with you, 
as they stand precisely, in my friend's estimation, on the same 
ground? He ought to let them in, because, he says, "they 
are good people, and the Lord's people, and have the name 
Christian," precisely as these others. 



(Dr. Lucas' Tenth Address. 211 

But he speaks about my being very anxious to get a great 
deal into that book, and that I seem to think that he is not 
likely to get much of Dr. Ray into the book. Well, this 
audience will fully bear testimony to the fact, whether they 
bear out this statement or not. They will testify to the fac^ 
let the case go with me as it may, that Dr. Ray is destined to 
have but very little in that book, for all the time he has 
quoted Campbell and Lard ; and I intended to request the 
gentleman to give us a little more Campbell and Lard before 
I sat down ; but, then, he has it in his lesson, and will give it 
without request. It is Campbell and Lard, and Lard and 
Campbell, that constitute the gentleman's magazine. This is 
about the amount of his material on hand, and he certainly 
would be in a very destitute condition, if it were not for 
Campbell and Lard, and Lard and Campbell. I hope the 
next time he gets up he will give us a little more from Lard 
and Campbell [laughter], and keep on to the close of this 
discussion quoting from Campbell and Lard ; for I know from 
former discussions that it is in your lesson, and you are ruined 
if you do not say it. Now, continue to quote Campbell and 
Lard, and Lard and Campbell [laughter]. It is in his lesson, 
and he can not say his lesson unless he says that. So, let 
him say on. 

Buk I am not so anxious, so far as my statements are con- 
cerned, in regard to that expected book ; but I will tell you 
what I do want. I want to get as many statements of the 
word of the inspired apostles into that book as I can, and, 
consequently, this audience will bear testimony that I have 
been quoting passage of Scripture after passage, passage after 
passage, in order that I may get as much of the Lord's Word 
into that book as possible. I have relied upon the testimony 
of the divine volume for what we have presented for your 
consideration. 

He stated that I said that baptism is an inherent element of 



212 0isciples ; Church Claims. 

faith. The gentleman is mistaken again. I said that Mr. 
Lynd said so, a Baptist. I quoted the authority and I will 
quote it to-night, before we shall have done with our investi- 
gation on this occasion. But, Euripides — he said he would 
not notice what I said in regard to Euripides until I had de- 
veloped the argument. Well, I presented a case where we 
have precisely the difficulties to which he refers, where we 
have a verb of the second person imperative, and a verb of the 
third person imperative, and where the language was addressed 
to the very same individuals and having the same purpose be- 
fore the mind, and expressed in that language. And his ar- 
gument is in regard to the 2d chapter of Acts of the 
Apostles, that repentance was not to the same individuals ad- 
dressed that Baptism was ; that repentance was not required 
of the same individuals that baptism was ; because repentance 
of the second person imperative, and plural in number, and 
that baptism is of the third person imperative, and singular in 
number ; that the two commands are not given to the same 
persons, and that the design expressed there is not presented 
in connection with repentance and baptism. Eight here 
we affirm that, so far as the examples quoted from Euripides, 
that they are parallel, so far as the point in argument is con- 
cerned with the passage in the Acts of the Apostles. But he 
said he would not notice Euripides. Probably there is a 
reason for that. He borrowed the argument from Brother 
Williams on the Acts of the Apostles, and probably he will 
have to wait and borrow an argument on Euripides, before he 
can reply. That may possibly be the case. But, we were 
looking over while the gentleman was talking in regard to 
these very same verbs, the similar ones, where they stand 
grammatically in the same position with repentance and bap- 
tism. It is in the 2d chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, and 
he said that we could not find in the Word of God any such 
case. While we were looking over the Scriptures, our eye 



(Dr. Lucas' Tenth .Address. 213 

fell upon a few cases. We will give them, but before we give 
them, I ask the gentleman to translate Acts ii. 38 — to trans- 
late that passage before this audience, and tell this audience 
just what Peter said. Now, I ask him to do it, and if he does 
not do it, I will ; but, I ask him to do it, as he has taken a 
position upon the question, and say just what Peter said. 
Probably he will want Brother Williams to give him a trans- 
lation before he can answer the question, but I call upon him 
to translate the passage, and, I say, if he does not, I will, and 
say just what the apostle Peter has said. But, then, we want 
to give you a passage. Now, we call your attention to the 1st 
Corinthians xiv. 37. Here we have the words : f '£<rre, adeX- 
tpoi, ZyXoure to 7zpo<p7)Ttbei\>, xai to kakelv yXaxraatq //.^ xcuXusts. 
IldvTa ebo%rjf±6pu)<z xai xolto. t&^iv ywiadaj. 

Now, here we have read you this passage, and we state that 
"tiaTe is of the second person imperative, plural, as the word 
rendered "repentance" in the Acts of the Apostles, and 
xuXo£T£ is of the second person imperative, as in the Acts of 
the Apostles, and xai xaTa Tagtv yivi<rdw is of the third person 
singular, imperative, as in the Acts of the Apostles, and that 
this language is addressed — these words, second imperative 
and third imperative, and connected by the conjunction xai is 
— addressed to the very same persons, and having the same 
end in view — addressed not to two classes of persons, but to 
one class. Then, here again, we have in the 13th verse of 
the 16th chapter of Corinthians, very similar language, 
where we have the verbs, first imperative and second person, 
third imperative or second person plural, and the third person 
imperative singular. So far as these points are concerned, 
then, they are precisely as they are found in the second chap- 
ter of the Acts of the Apostles, so far as the imperative second 
and plural, and the imperative third and singular of the verbs 
are concerned, and addressed to the same persons. I will state 
to the gentleman that we can not only find this state of facts 



214 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

in Euripides, but I say again that we can find the same in 
other passages in the New Testament Scriptures ; and, as Ben- 
edict says, if we had the time to develop the facts, no doubt 
we could find a great many where we have precisely the point 
as presented here in the gentleman's argument against my 
position upon the Acts of the Apostles ; and when this criti- 
cism, with these passages, appear in that expected book which 
this debate is designed to produce, and it should happen to 
fall into the hands of those who are scholars, I am satisfied 
that the gentleman's criticisms, borrowed from his Brother 
Williams, will, at least, excite a smile among scholars. Now 
let the gentleman go to the passages to which we have refer- 
red, and see if we have stated falsely in regard to these pas- 
sages in Corinthians. We say, so far as the point before us is 
concerned, that they are identical, having connected there- 
with the verbs imperative second person plural, and the verbs 
imperative third person singular, and addressed to the same 
persons with the same design before the mind of the one ad- 
dressing them. Then there are other passages, we say, that 
might be found in classic Greek, and in the New Testament 
Greek, of a like nature, and to these we invite the gentleman's 
attention; and let him show that we are wrong upon the 
question. 

But we call your attention to baptism emblematic. The gen- 
tleman barely mentioned it in his last speech. I had intended to 
have noticed it in a former one. Said he : "Baptism in these 
passages is emblematic." Suppose, for the sake of argument 
now, that we admit that thus far the gentleman is correct. 
But, said he, " It is precisely as the picture is of the individ- 
ual to the individual ;" and he spoke of your humble servant 
in order to illustrate, and said that the child looking at Dr. 
Lucas' picture, w T ould answer: "That is Dr. Lucas, because 
it is the picture of Dr. Lucas," and of any one else precisely 
the same. I affirm that the picture of a man is not necessary 



(Dr. Lucas' Tenth Address. 215 

in order to the existence of the man ; he exists independently 
of the picture, and is a man as well without the picture as with 
it. And here, taking this illustration, we come to Baptism, 
and in the commission Jesus says : "He that belie veth and is 
baptized shall be saved;" and "repent and be baptized, every 
one of you," or, let each one of you already repentant be 
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins. 
Here, he says, it is emblematic. I want to know whether bap- 
tism, as presented here by the Saviour, is necessary to the ex- 
istence and enjoyment of the thing that it represents. If he 
says it is not, then we are prepared to meet him on that point. 
If he says it is, then he gives up the question, and admits that 
his illustration of the picture of the man is a sophism, and 
nothing else. We present this point, and ask the gentleman 
to give it his attention, whether it be necessary to the exis- 
tence of the thing that it represents, or to the enjoyment of 
that thing of which it is an emblem. If it is not necessary, 
then, we say, we are ready to meet him. If he says it is, then 
he gives up the question. Our argument stands incontrover- 
tibly fixed before your minds, and in regard to this passage in 
the Acts of the Apostles we want to call your attention to a 
few Baptist authorities, to show that they understand this pas- 
sage precisely as we do ; and we quote these Baptist authori- 
ties because we regard them as more authoritative with my 
friend and to the Baptists than authorities from any other 
quarter. We quote them because they are Baptists, that Bap 
tists may see the position that leading men in their church 
have taken upon the subject that my friend so zealously wars 
against, and calls by such ugly names. 

Now, w r e invite your attention to what is said, here, by Dr. 
Gale. We quote from Dr. Gale's seventh sermon on baptism, 
pages 193 and 199 : "Such as seriously consider these things 
essential can never prevail with themselves to neglect so use- 
ful and necessary an ordinance, for it must appear very bold 



216 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

and hard." Now, that is what Dr. Gale says to my friend. 
It is not my language to him, but Dr. Gale's, the Baptist 
brother that wrote a work on the subject of baptism. He is 
talking now to my friend, and to all of you, and says that it 
must appear very bold and hard for any to accept and prom- 
ise themselves with the remission of their sins in any other 
way than the Scriptures direct. The Scriptures say that Christ 
instituted baptism for the remission of sins, and several persons 
in the Scriptures, and among the rest even the great apostle 
Paul, are commanded to be baptized in order to the remission 
of their sins. This is what Dr. Gale understands in reference 
to eisaphesin amartion, for the remission of sins. Here we have 
a number of passages from Mr. McClane, another Baptist 
authority of high standing in his church, and this is the 
language of Mr. McClane, a high authority in his church : 
"Be baptized for the remission, washing away of sins, evi- 
dently imports that in baptism the remission of sins is rep- 
resented as really conferred upon the believer." We might go 
on. We have a number of passages here of the same nature, 
that we would quote had Ave time ; but one more must close 
what we have to say upon the subject under discussion. We 
promised you some extracts from Dr. Lynd, a man well known 
by one of our worthy Moderators, who was at one time his 
student. We now call your attention to what he says. He was 
connected with the Bible Kevision Association. Says Dr. Lynd : 
"We must not shrink from the admission because we may be 
charged with making too much of baptism — the Saviour and his 
apostles made much of baptism." Again, on the same page : 
"The apostles represent it as a burial and resurrection with 
Christ, as a putting on of Christ." — Lynd's work on Baptism, 
p. 6. And, further: "Baptism is a course necessary to a re- 
sult, remission of sins in the same sense, that is a necessity 
arising from the command of God." — p. 7. And, again: "We 
may ask with perfect propriety, can a man be saved without 



(Dr. Lucas 3 Tenth Address. 217 

baptism, in the sense in which baptism is required of him ?" 
p. 9. "When we believe in Jesus as our Lord, we put our- 
selves under his government in the way which he has appoint- 
ed, that is, by baptism. No saving faith can be exercised 
independently of the subjection in the case in which it is 
required. No part of the New Testament warrants a man in 
accepting salvation who does not come in subjection to the 
government of Jesus Christ in the way which he has appoint- 
ed, God granting him life and opportunity to put on Christ." 
pp. 14, 15. "Throughout this essay, when we speak of a sin- 
ner's justification by faith, we mean this kind of faith." — p. 15. 
"There is a connection between baptism and salvation, of 
which we have yet to speak." — p. 19. "This form of subjec- 
tion to Christ is an inherent" — Dr. Lynd said so, and we quote 
it — "this form of subjection to Christ is an inherent element of 
the faith that justifies ; hence, without it no true faith exists in 
the soul which does not render it, life and opportunity being 
granted." — p. 21. "Christ has commanded us to demonstrate 
our faith in his death for our offenses by baptism, with the 
assurance that he who believes and is baptized shall be saved, 
though there is nothing in baptism that renders it meritorious 
but by an external act demonstrative of the faith within." — 
pp. 24, 25. "Another design of this ordinance is that in this 
act we should take the oath of allegiance to Jesus Christ to 
be a subject. We are required in this ordinance to put on 
Christ." — p. 25. "We then publicly renounce our former 
life, and profess to commence a new life. We assert to the 
world in this act that we die to sin and rise to a new life." — p. 
26. "Jesus Christ does not regard us as saved if we refuse to 
be baptized into the name of the Sacred Trinity." — p. 26. 
"This subjection in baptism to Jesus Christ is necessary to the 
very existence of faith itself, for it is an element of faith/' 
so Dr. Lynd affirms. — p. 26. "Thus giving ourselves to the 
Lord and not to his people, which we afterward do when we 



218 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

unite with them in a church capacity." — Lynd, p. 27. "To 
become members of the church, we must first be formally 
recognized by Jesus Christ as He spoke of His spiritual 
kingdom in the ordinance of baptism. In the primitive 
times Baptist believers were added to the church, and it 
is said the Lord added to the church daily the saved, 
not such as should be saved. Baptism has a much more im- 
portant design than that of being a door into a Christian con- 
gregation." — p. 28. "It is very certain that the promise of 
salvation is to those who believe and are baptized. 'He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved.' This is God's Word. 
Let those w T ho do not thus put on Christ have all the trouble 
of meeting and explaining away the force of our Saviour's 
words. Let their consciences meet it fully." — p. 37. "We 
can never get clear of the connection which Christ has estab- 
lished. We can never repudiate the fact that salvation is 
promised to him who believes and is baptized." — p. 40. "An 
attempt has been made to show in what sense baptism is 
necessary to salvation. We may have failed in exhibiting this 
accurately, but the fact still remains." — p. 40. [Time Ex- 
pired.] 



ELDER RAY'S TENTH REPLY. 



Brother Moderators, Kespected Audience : — I have 
heard the reading from Dr. Lucas three times. It is in his 
lesson, and of course he has to go through with it. But the 
Dr. talks about "Ray's little book." Now, I have not been 
boasting about its being a large one, or either of them. I will 
state now, however, in regard to my works, that the man does 
not live who has ever proved the positions therein taken to be 
false. The Text-Book has gone through the sixth edition, 
and the Succession the fifth. Nearly twenty thousand dollars 
worth of them have been sold. It is a good deal easier for a 
man to sneer at things than to meet solid arguments. 

But he says that several have been received among Baptists 
without an experience of grace. I just simply do not believe 
it. I think you are misinformed. I believe they confessed 
conversion, or they were not received among Baptists. I think 
you are mistaken in regard to it. If you can find one that 
was received among Baptists that does not profess to have an 
experience of grace in his heart, I think they ought to turn 
him out very soon. 

Then, in regard to what I have said, that I do not regard 
his brethren as having been baptized. I reaffirm the same 
thing. I do not regard their administrations as valid baptism ; 
1 have always showed my faith by my works. In regard to 
communion with those who are not baptized, I will state that 
one inconsistency does not license another ; and, therefore, let 
us be consistent. If we have done wrong at one time, let us 
just merely do so no more. 



220 (Disciples' 'Church Claims. 

But, Mr. Campbell and Mr. Lard said this and the other 
about these matters. Well, dear friends, Mr. Campbell is the 
founder of the church that the gentleman is trying to defend 
as the church of Christ ; and the reason I am talking about Mr. 
Campbell so much, is that I am going to the head of the gen- # 
tleman's church. I am going to the law-giver in his church, 
without which Dr. Lucas could not have been saved, accord- 
ing to his own doctrine, or proposition. As his church had no 
connection with the Apostolic Church, and the Dr. admits 
that the Apostolic Church became extinct, and reappeared in 
the one that has been set up lately, in modern times, I 
must, therefore, go to the head and founder of his church, to 
look at the doctrines of his church. I will give you the views 
of Dr. Rice now. This is another man — not Campbell and 
Lard — I will give you a little variety now, Doctor. Page 38 
of Mr. Rice's book on Campbellism: " Mr. Campbell's refor- 
mation commenced by assailing truth and righteousness, and by 
favoring and inculcating destructive error. It bitterly attacked 
the ministers of Christ, and heaped upon them multiplied 
slanders. " Page 39, he says : "The Campbellite body is 'a 
mixed multitude/ whose faith can not be ascertained, or 
rather which has no particular faith ; without organization, or 
order; overrun with every sort of doctrine, preached by 
almost all sorts of men ; without any tribunal or ecclesiastical 
authority by which it could be purged of error. In such a 
body there may be found truly pious people ; but when the 
leading man denies the operation of the Holy Spirit in the 
human heart, and preaches baptismal justification, it is not to be 
expected that many such will find either edification or pleas- 
ant associations. Certainly, evangelical Christians and 
churches can not acknowledge such a body as a church of 
Jesus Christ." I read this, to show that many of the greatest 
men that have ever had anything to do with Campbellism con- 
tend that it is not the church of the living God, and that, as 



Elder (fray's Tenth (Reply. 221 

to their plan of salvation, it is not the plan advocated by 
Christ and the apostles. 

But, the gentleman says that I said, in regard to Pentecost, 
that some persons were not required to be baptized, who were 
required to repent. I did not so state. I said that those two 
verbs were not connected together, in order to procure the 
same result, from the fact that they had different nominatives, 
were in different numbers, and in different persons — with differ- 
ent voices, and with different objects. "Repent ye, and be 
baptized every one of you.' 9 Now, if I were to give my views of 
the rendering of it — and I do not profess to be a translator of 
the Word of God with infallible certainty — but this much I 
think I know, that literally rendered it would be, repent ye, 
and let each one of you be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for 
the remission of sins. "Be baptized " is in the third person 
singular. As to the charge made about my copying from 
Brother Williams, I did so for this purpose : not that I had 
not learned that much myself, but I wished to give the weight 
of his authority, and of his influence, and his talents to my po- 
sition. And this is why I often quote from others, when I 
have the same views. I am not so completely filled with vanity 
that I wish to put myself forward before all my brethren. 

As to his making insinuations, I might make insinuations, 
too, about the Dr.'s want of information. I think he is a 
little off the rules we are to be governed by. I will next re- 
fer to what he said about dmtithemai. He was going to settle 
the controversy, in regard to the commencement of the king- 
dom, on* what Liddell and Scott said concerning the meaning 
of that word, that the first New Testament meaning was " to 
promise," and he was going to make it all depend there. , But 
he did not bring up the proof. Liddell and Scott do not 
make to promise the first New Testament meaning of diatithe- 
mai. It means to appoint. The Dr. is mistaken. He has 
lost his whole cause on the setting up of the kingdom. 



222 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

But, the examples he referred to as parallel to Acts ii. 38. 
He did not tell us, or the congregation, what was the result to 
be secured by the use of those examples he gave from the 
New Testament. My mind was called to another point. I 
was noting just at that time, and I did not gather the chapter, 
verse, or passage that he referred to. But I do not think he 
has examples precisely of the same sort, to procure the same 
result in those verbs. If he has, I wish him to define himself 
a little more particularly. 

Now, in regard to Dr. Lynd, I will state, dear friends, that 
from what he read it appears that Dr. Lynd, while he used 
language a little stronger than I would indorse, aims to teach 
the doctrine that saving faith can not be exercised indepen- 
dently of a spirit of subjection to Christ. And when these 
converts become children of God, they will be baptized as the 
fruits of regeneration or conversion ; that it is a subjective 
faith that brings one in subjection to Christ, and in bap- 
tism is the formal subjection to Christ. That is the lan- 
guage he read, that in baptism we have the formal sub- 
jection. Well, then, it is not the literal and real washing 
away of sins. And I will state this, from all I have seen, al- 
though I am not very familiar with Dr. Lynd's writings, I am 
prepared to advance the opinion that Dr. Lynd has nowhere 
taught the doctrine that baptism is absolutely essential to the 
pardon of sins. I do not believe that is the doctrine of Dr. 
Lynd ; and I happen to have a work of Dr. Lynd, on 
Baptism, just now ; — (p. 16) he comments thus : " Repent 
every one of you, and be baptized every one of you. They were 
co be immersed into the remission of sins, to symbolize the 
washing away of their sins through the atonement of Christ, 
and not that remission might follow that act." Here, is Dr. 
Lynd explaining himself — not that remission might follow the act 
of baptism, but they symbolize the washing away of sins in 
baptism. And, again (p. 18), he says: "The subjects of 



Elder (Ray's Tenth (Reply. 223 

this kingdom arc those who are born of the Spirit of God. 
There is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, neither Jew 
nor Greek, neither bond rmr free, neither male nor female, 
but all are one in Christ Jesus. How, then, can we baptize 
those who furnish no evidence of spiritual regeneration ?" 
Showing thai the spiritual regeneration has passed before bap- 
tism. That is the doctrine of Dr. Lynd, and if I had the 
works that he has quoted from, to examine the context, I will 
venture the assertion that his construction of Dr. Lynd's 
position is a little too strong. 

But, another negative argument. The gentleman's church 
is not the church of Christ, because it is not the martyr church 
— that church which tin; little horn was said to have perse- 
cuted, and the members of whieh were prevailed against for 
1200 years; and the true ehureh was sorely persecuted by 
that scarlet woman, "drunken with the blood of the saints" 
and martyrs of Jesus. That martyr ehureh comes along down 
the path of history. J lis ehureh is not that ehureh ; but the 
ehureh of Christ is the martyr ehureh, the ehureh of the 
New Testament, the ehureh of the true and living Cod. 

I wish to eall your attention again to the faet, that it is not 
the true and genuine ehureh of Christ, beca/U86 it is destitute of 

Bible repentance. J will not attempt to read the passages just 
now, because I have; not time, but I will make; a condensed 
statement and refer you to the works and pages. First, then, 
tin; repentance of the gentleman's ehureh is without the per- 
sonal aid of the Holy Spirit. — Christian System, p. 04. Second, 
it In without prayer, — (Millennial Harbinger, extra, number 1, 
p. 35.) Third, it is without godly sorrow, — Christian System, p. 
255. Repentance does not change the heart according to 

the teaching of tin; gentleman's church. It is without prayer 
and without tin; personal operation of the Spirit; and so Mr. 
Campbell says, " without godly sorrow." Sueh h repentance, we 
aflirm, is not the repentance of the J>ible : is not that repentance 



224 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

taught in God's precious Word; because* that repentance is 
wrought by a godly sorrow, working repentance into life, that 
deep penitence and sorrow that takes hold of the hearts of 
those who seek and serve God. * 

But I wish to call your attention to one more point. The 
Reformed Church, is not the true church of Christ, because 
it does not possess that meek, peaceable and quiet spirit of the 
church of Christ, I mean as an organization, I mean the leaders 
— those that have fabricated this system that they call the 
reformation of the nineteenth century. I need not refer to 
the insinuations that are continually heaped upon your un- 
worthy servant throughout their press. I have this statement 
of Moses Lard in regard to myself from the Apostolic Times 
of 1869, Nov. 18 : "The right way to deal with Eay, is to 
exhibit to the people, where he makes a noise, the meanness of 
his character, as shown by the contents of his books." He 
said I had written a bad book, but that he failed to point out 
a single paragraph or a single word that was not true ; and yet 
he wants men to show "the meanness of his character!" Mr. 
Campbell said of the clergymen of his time: "That our prin- 
ciples would reduce hirelings, drones, idle shepherds, dumb 
dogs, and unfaithful watchmen to contempt, we allow." — Me- 
moirs of Alexander Campbell, vol. 1, p. 244. Again, Mr. 
Campbell said, as found in the Life of Mr. John Smith (p. 15) : 

"The worshiping establishments now in operation throughout 
Christendom, increased and cemented by their respective vol- 
uminous confessions of faith, and their ecclesiastical constitu- 
tions, are not churches of Jesus Christ, but the legitimate 
daughters of that mother of harlots, the church of Rome." 
Showing what his estimate was of all other churches, and yet 
the disciples wish to commune with those daughters of the old 
harlot — that are not the Churches of Christ ! Then, again, we 
have the testimony of Mr. Campbell, Millennial Harbinger, 
vol. 5, p. 195 — "The opinion of the orthodox are about as 



Elder (Ray's Tenth (Reply. 225 

correct on millennial matters as they are on their systems of 
divinity. Their gigantic efforts to evangelize the world at the 
present is tending to perfect the analogy between the present 
and the past dispensation : compassing sea and land to make 
proselytes ; and when they are made they are twofold more 
the children of hell." This shows that Mr. Campbell regarded 
those as proselytes — those that united with what is called the 
orthodox churches — as made twofold more the children of 
hell." And yet, if any one should use such strong language 
in argument against that system, then they are held up as un- 
charitable. I do not oppose his church because I have any 
antipathy against individual members. I do it as being truly 
in the service of my Master : to defend his truth against error — 
that error which is likely to destroy men. Hear what was said 
by Mr. Lard about Brother Williams. He says, in writing to 
one of the periodicals : ' 'Allow me to warn all our brethren 
who love the truth against either buying or reading a certain 
cold, mean book, purported to have been written by one A. 
P. Williams, of Missouri. It is a sin to encourage the book, 
and no credit to any one to notice the man." — (Quoted from 
Modisett's work, p. 73.) Showing that from Mr. Campbell, 
the head and founder of the gentleman's church, down, they 
oftentimes resort to this mode of meeting men, and answering 
their works, they indulging in wholesale denunciations. And 
they have not 'manifested as much of that kindly spirit as 
the Saviour recommends. 

But I will call your attention to the gentleman's arguments 
that he has presented (and I must dignify them with the term 
arguments). I wish you to remember that he affirmed that 
the church organization with which he, Dr. J. R. Lucas, stands 
identified, possesses the Bible characteristics, which entitles it 
to be regarded as the visible church, or kingdom of Jesus 
Christ. He said they were right in regard to the commence- 
ment ; that Pentecost was the time. But did he not contend 



226 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

that the true church had become extinct ? Then his church 
did not commence on the day of Pentecost, according to his 
own testimony. If it did not commence then, please tell us 
when it did commence. But the arguments I have advanced 
against his position, as to the setting up of the church, I do not 
think he has met any of them. He did not notice at all the 
passage which I cited from Acts x. 37, that "That word I say, 
ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and be- 
gan from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached " — 
preaching peace by Jesus Christ. Here is the testimony of 
Peter, at the house of Cornelius, that this word of salvation 
began from Galilee. And I showed from the letter to the 
Hebrews ii. 3, that this " great salvation ; which at the first 
began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us 
by them that heard Mm" Showing that Jesus Christ, not 
Peter, first preached this great salvation. Then, again, I 
showed that in Luke iv. 18-22, that this gospel that had been 
preached prophetically by Isaiah, was now fulfilled in the 
hearing, in the ears of those who were present, and I do not 
think he answered that argument. Then, that from the days 
of John, the Baptist, until now, the kingdom of heaven suf- 
fereth violence and the violent take it by force ; and then, 
Matthew xxiii. 13 : — where it is said the Pharisees shut up the 
kingdom against men ; they would not go in themselves, and 
would not suffer those who were entering to go in ; and, 
again, Luke xvi. 16 — where it is said they pressed into the 
kingdom ; from the days of John the Baptist until now the 
kingdom of heaven is pressed into ; and the law and the 
prophets were until John. But the gentleman has not, it 
seems to me, fully answered these arguments. He said, al- 
though it was pressed into from the days of John, it meant 
the future — that it was going to be pressed into. In the other 
discussion, he said they pressed toward it. If they pressed 
toward it, it must have been in existence, or they could not 



Elder (Ray's Tenth (Reply. 227 

have pressed toward that kingdom. So it appears he has even 
failed in regard to the commencement of the true church. 
But, where did he find that his church commenced on the day 
of Pentecost ? He was going to prove identity. It is 
bound to be the identical church set up on the day of Pente- 
cost. If there was such an one set up on that day, it is still 
in existence ; because all have learned from God's Word that 
the church never became extinct. In the second argument, 
the gentleman said they had the Bible foundation. I denied 
that, as an organization, they were founded on the Bible. I 
showed that Mr. Campbell presented what he called "a scheme 
of things, " in what is called the ancient gospel, to be the foun- 
dation of that church, and that upon that he and his co- 
workers built what they call the Millennial Church. I showed 
that the Disciples did not operate on the plan of salvation ad- 
ministered by Christ, or by the prophets that Peter appealed 
to. I showed that they rejected the Lord's prayer from the 
New Testament, as not now being applicable. I showed that 
they rejected the plan of salvation administered by Christ, in 
the case of the thief upon the cross, and in the case of the 
publican ; and of the palsied man ; and in the case of the sin- 
ful woman, who bathed his feet with tears, anchwiped them 
with the hairs of her head ; thus showing that they do not 
really take the Bible. But, I would like to call your atten- 
tion for a moment to another position, showing that they 
claim a human production, one written by Mr. Campbell 
himself, as their fundamental work. Mr. Segar's Life of Alex- 
ander Campbell, page 26, says : "The arguments and details 
of these views are to be found in a work called the ' Christian 
System' — the fundamental work, so to speak, of the Disciples, 
as a religious people. The same views, especially, as regards 
baptism, are also amplified and discussed in another work, 
known as the 'Christian Baptist,' first published in serial 
form, and since revised, and collected as a sort of text -book 



228 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

by the Disciples." This shows, that the Christian System, a 
work by Mr. Campbell, is their fundamental doctrinal work, 
and that the Christian Baptist is their text-book. 

But, again, the Dr. claimed that they had the Bible form 
of church government, and Bible officers. This I denied, and 
called upon him for the proof. I denied that non-preaching 
elders, administering the affairs of the church, were authorized in 
God's precious Word. He has not opened his mouth upon that 
subject. He has not replied to it. I say, since that I have 
never heard a word upon it ! 

Again, he said Jesus Christ is their head, that they take 
him as the head of their church. I have shown from passage 
after passage that the Disciples do not regard Jesus Christ as 
their founder and head — I mean, their writers. 

And. in regard to that Clay letter, Mr. Richardson says 
that Mr. Campbell had great favors shown to him while in 
England, and he mentions this very letter of Mr. Clay's that 
gave him such success in that country ; and that letter says 
that Dr. Campbell is the founder and the head of this religious 
community, or denomination. And Dr. Segar, in the work I 
have quoted, said Mr. Campbell is the recognized head of the 
new religiousjfnovement, that had for its object the restoration 
of the original gospel and order of things ; and that out of 
this movement has grown the gentleman's church. Thus, Mr. 
Campbell is the founder, and Mr. Campbell is the head of his 
church. Then, they are wrong in regard to their headship. 

Again : He advanced in his line of argument, and said the 
Disciples were right because they had the right name, and he 
elaborated that question. But where does the gentleman find 
the name " Christian Church?" He has one more speech on 
the subject. Will he please tell us the chapter and verse? 
But, he says my questions are not relevant, and he is willing 
to let them go before the people unanswered ! Whether rele- 
vant or not, when he has propounded questions I have made 



Elder (Ray's Tenth (Reply. 229 

an effort to answer those that concern the church. The ques- 
tion of debate is a church question. But, again, I ask him if 
the name " Christian" is ever found in connection with 
* "church" in God's Word. If his argument is good for any- 
thing, it will prove that all the various denominations profes- 
sing Christianity are the visible churches, or kingdoms of 
Jesus Christ, because every one, at least in the sense in which 
the word Christian is authorized, claim to be " Christians/' 
They all claim it — Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, 
and all the rest. I wish to know whether he includes Disci- 
ples. The Reformers do not use the name Christian scarcely at 
all in the East. In Virginia they call themselves Disciples. 
Is the gentleman going to deny that they are part of the 
church, because they call themselves " Disciples?" Again: 
The Unitarians of the East call themselves a " Christian So- 
ciety," and yet they deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. Is 
the gentleman going to take them into fellowship ? And, 
then, the Winebrennerians call themselves the " Church of 
God." Are they a part of the gentleman's church ? Is he 
in fellowship with them, because they have got the right name ? 
It seems to me he has failed ^totally and absolutely upon the 
name. 

But, he said he had the right theory of faith. I have 
quoted passage after passage from his brethren, and that is 
why I quoted from his writers — not merely to make the state- 
ment that they held thus and so, but to back up my state- 
ments" from their ablest writers — that their faith is not the 
faith of God's precious Word. It is not that faith with the 
heart, that faith that works by love, and purifies the heart ; 
because, if this were the case, they would have a man of pure 
heart, a man that had a good conscience before repentance, 
which is impossible. [Time Expired.] 

i 



DR. LUCAS' ELEVENTH ADDRESS. 



Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : I 
simply say that my friend is mistaken in regard to the giving 
up of the definition of diartOrjixt. In regard to the meaning of 
the word, I have not the time to discuss that question now. 
It will be up again with his proposition, and will be just as rele- 
vant then as now, when you will hear me fully on that question. 
But before we proceed further, lest we forget it, we will consider 
the passage here in regard to the 3d of Galatians, just quoted, 
and will go a little further on that subject, concerning Abra- 
ham's faith. Now, then, in the closing part of this chapter, 
beginning with the 24th verse, Paul goes on to explain himself, 
where he says, "The law was our schoolmaster, to bring us to 
Christ, that we might be justified by faith, but after that faith 
is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster, for ye are all 
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you 
as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." 

Paul explains himself. That is all we have to say on that 
subject. 

But as you have had Dr. Lynd before your minds, I wish to 
call your attention to another passage or two — though we 'have 
many passages from him and others, and with this we will 
have to dismiss this subject, as this is our closing address on 
this proposition. 

We quote from Dr. Lynd's work, p. 47 : "The expression 
'for the remission of sins,' would, ordinarily, indicate the same 
as the words ' in order to the remission of sins.' Professor 
Hackett, of Newtown, who may be regarded as good 



(Dr. Lucas' Eleventh Address. 231 

authority, has translated the passages, Acts ii. 28, by the 
words 'in order to.' In this he will probably be sustained by 
the most distinguished scholars." 

That is what Dr. Lynd says. And this is Dr. Hackett's 
translation, one of the Bible Union translators or revisors. 
He translates this: "in order to the remission of sins." And 
Dr. Hackett and Dr. Lynd are both members of the Baptist 
church. 

There are a number of others besides, whom we would like 
to quote. We have a number from Newman Hall, and from 
Wayland, and from a number of others that we might men- 
tion, if we had time, who testify to the same thing, and they 
are all prominent members of the Baptist church. 

So far as the gentleman's translation is concerned, we accept 
it. The translation is correct ; but we say that lie never can 
make his position go with that translation ; he may try it until 
Gabriel blows his trump, and he can not do it. But we state 
further. We say there is but one subject of these verbs, and 
in the passages to which w T e have already referred, and also in 
Euripides, that there is but one subject, though we have the 
two verbs, the second person imperative and the third person 
imperative, the second person plural imperative and the third 
person singular. Notwithstanding we have these verbs con- 
nected here and addressed to the very same persons, yet, we say, 
they have but the one subject, because they are used with 
reference to the same class of persons precisely, and look to 
one grand result. The gentleman has not noticed the passage 
in Euripides, or the passage referred to in Corinthians. 

But we must hasten on to our review. We notice another 
point or two of the gentleman, however, before we enter that 
review. "The law and the prophets were until John : since 
then the kingdom of God is preached/' We allow this to 
stand as a representative of all those passages that he has 
; quoted, and these passages speak of the kingdom of God as 



232 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

though it were existing in the days of John. The gentleman 
said that the apostles were not called until after John was in 
prison, and Jesus never gave the disciples the kingdom until 
after he went away ; that at the time he went away it was 
forty days after the resurrection of Jesus ; and if the apostles 
were not called, which he claims was the foundation of the 
kingdom, until after John was imprisoned, and they received 
not the kingdom from the Son of God until he went away, it 
was forty days after his resurrection. Then his doctrine about 
the kingdom actually existing in the days of John is all a 
farce. There is nothing in it, according to his own showing, 
and the gentleman has surrendered all that he has said upon 
these passages in regard to the setting up of the kingdom as 
actually existing in the days of John. In his admissions upon 
this particular case, he has surrendered the whole thing, so 
far as the kingdom then existing is concerned. 

Well, he says, in regard to receiving persons in the Baptist 
church without experience of grace in their hearts, that so far 
as that point is concerned, he positively denies. Well, who 
said so ? The gentleman is constantly getting up before you 
false issues, and matters that nobody ever affirmed. What 
did we affirm? We affirmed that the Baptist Church received 
members of the Christian Church without demanding of them 
an experience before baptism, as is common with the Baptist 
Church, and without rebaptizing them. We said that, and 
we say it now. Let the Baptist Church of this place deny 
it through Dr. Kay, and we will prove it by as good a man 
as you have in your city ; and let him deny that. That is 
what we say. Let him deny the question, if he dare ! I 
know what I am talking about, and if it is denied, you will 
find out that I do know something about these matters. 

But, he refers to Dr. Kice. It seems he has got tired, after 
having been reminded every now and then, of his reading 
from Campbell and Lard. I should like to have him read on 



(Dr. Lucas' Eleventh Address. 233 

— read on ! I hope he will ! I want to hear him read on the 
subject, and I have no doubt all the audience are interested 
every time he tells them that he is going to read from Camp- 
bell and Lard, and Lard and Campbell. Let him read on : 
no objections at all — none under the broad heavens! We do 
not complain at it at all. But now he quotes from Dr. Rice. 
Who is he ? He is another individual who joined in the war- 
fare of writing books on Campbellism, and the gentleman 
quotes him along with Jeter, and Taylor, and Williams, and 
Dr. Ray. He quotes them to show something in regard to 
our people. Can not you find another man that has written 
against Campbellism, and quote him ? You better bring them 
all in. 

But we must advance with our review. The first argument 
in favor of our proposition, that the church to which we be- 
long, known and recognized by my brethren as the Christian 
Church, possesses the characteristics which entitle it to be re- 
garded as the visible church, or kingdom of Jesus Christ. 

The first argument to which we called your attention was 
drawn from the prophecies of Isaiah and Micah, where it is 
said, "In the last days the mountain of the Lord's house 
shall be established on the tops of the mountains," and so on. 
Then, "That the law shall go forth out of Zion, and the 
word of the Lord from Jerusalem." And, in connection with 
these prophecies, we called your attention to Luke's record, 
that repentance and remission of sins shall be preached in his 
name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And the 
language of Jesus, "Tarry in the city of Jerusalem until ye 
be endued with power from on high." Then, on the first 
Pentecost, when the Spirit descended to qualify them to 
preach the gospel of our blessed Lord, we have Peter affirm- 
ing, " And this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel 
in the last days," and so on. And, in the very language of 
the prophecy of Isaiah, and of Micah, Jerusalem was the 



234 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

place, the apostles were the persons to proclaim the name of 
Jesus, to preach the gospel ; and they were endowed with the 
Spirit of God, and they began on the first Pentecost, after the 
ascension of our adorable Redeemer. The place and time — 
place, Jerusalem ; and the time, the first Pentecost. 

We quoted from Duncan ; we quoted from Jones ; we 
quoted from Orchard — all Baptists — and from Neander ; and 
they all say that there the first church was established, and 
became a model church of all churches formed from that in 
the land of Judea. From their own authorities, then, our 
point is admitted. We quoted a number of other passages with 
regard to the kingdom. We presented, secondly, our argu- 
ment that we had the right foundation — that the primitive 
church was founded upon Jesus. And so with regard to the 
church with which we stand identified — founded upon Jesus 
the Christ, the Son of the living God. We quoted the Scrip- 
tures in demonstration of this proposition: "Upon this rock 
will I build my church." And, again : "There is no other 
foundation laid." "There is no other foundation," said Paul, 
as presented in the 3d chapter of 1st Corinthians, and 10th 
verse : " No other foundation but Christ Jesus the Lord." And, 
again, 2d Ephesians, closing part of that chapter: "You 
are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" — 
Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. We are iden- 
tical with the primitive church, then, in regard to the foun- 
dation. But, then, in regard to the creed. The Word of God — 
the truth, the whole truth, and no tiling but the truth ; that 
was the creed of the primitive church, that is our creed, to 
the exclusion of all others. Again, the Christian name. We 
showed you that the name was given by divine appointment, 
and that it was a patronymic name, derived from Christ — that 
it was tire name of the family of Christians, and, therefore, as 
that family was a church, it was the name of the church of 
Christ, and therefore is the Christian Church, or church of 



(Dr. Lucas' Eleventh Address. 235 

Christ. But further upon this subject. To show you that 
this patronymic name is derived from Christ, we call your at- 
tention to the prophecy of Isaiah, 9th chapter and 6th verse : 
" Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the 
government shall be upon his shoulders, and he shall be called 
.Wonderful Counsellor, the mighty God;" or, as McKnight 
and others have rendered it, "father of the everlasting age — the 
prince of peace." He is the father of the Christian age, or 
dispensation. The name is patronymic, derived from Him, 
the name of his family, the church, and therefore it is the 
name of His church; therefore we say, then, we have the 
Bible name Christian Church, of which Christ is the head. 
We affirm that we are correct with regard to the ordinances 
of the church ; we are correct with regard to the theory and 
plan of conversion. This was our argument on the theory 
and plan of conversion. First, we stated that our faith was 
according to the Word of God. That faith comes by hearing, 
and hearing by the Word of God. The gentleman did not 
deny this. Consequently, we affirm that our faith rests upon 
the Saviour, as the only Redeemer. We quoted John xx. 
30, 31, in demonstration of the truth of this propo- 
sition — that we were to believe him to be the Son of God, 
and that through Him we obtain life. We also stated that 
the office of faith is first to receive Jesus ; secondly, it has an 
influence upon the heart. By faith the heart is purified, the 
love of sin is destroyed. We believe with all the heart. 
By this faith the heart is purified — the love of sin destroyed, 
the love of holiness created in its stead, and the man 
ceases to practice sin because he ceases to love sin, and 
practices holiness because he loves holiness. By the office 
of faith a godly sorrow is wrought in the heart, and 
this godly sorrow works repentance unto salvation that needeth 
not to be repented of. That every penitent believer is required 
to be baptized into the death of Christ, and put on Christ — 



236 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

to be baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Spirit — that this penitent believer is now purified by 
faith, and having repented of his sins and baptized in the 
name of the Holy Trinity — that he is baptized for the remis- 
sion of his sins. 

We called your attention in proof to the great commission — 
" Go preach the gospel to every creature ; He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved." And also, to Peters lan- 
guage in Acts ii. 38 : "Repent, and be baptized every one of 
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," 
and we have shown you that eis aphesin amartoon is, " in order 
to the remission of sins," and admitted by the gentleman's 
own proof. We called your attention to the language found 
in John iii. 5 : " Except a man be born of water and of the 
Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." We 
called your attention to the 22d chapter of the Acts of the 
Apostles, where Ananias appears to Saul of Tarsus, and says : 
"Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling 
on the name of the Lord." We called your attention to the 
3d chapter of 1st Peter, where the apostle says : "The 
like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us." 
We called your attention to all these Scriptures, in proof of 
the characteristics of the primitive church ; and they are the 
characteristics of the church known by my brethren as the 
church of Christ-— as the Christian Church, with which I 
stand identified. If these characteristics made up the church 
of Christ, in primitive times, the same characteristics can be 
no more and no less than the church of Christ at the present 
day. If they constituted the church of Christ then, they 
constitute the church of Christ now. They can not constitute 
anything else than this. And if they made a certain organi- 
zation — a certain church in the days of Christ and the apos- 
tles — they make the same institution, the same organization 
now. Consequently, we have shown you by these character- 



(Dr. Lucas' Eleventh Address. 237 

istics that we are the church of Christ ; that we are that or- 
ganization, that institution presented in the Word of God, 
established by the authority of Jesus, and presented by the 
inspired apostles of the Son of God. 

We think, then, that we have established our proposition, 
with one other point that we now propose to submit — namely, 
this : That so far as the members of the church of Jesus 
Christ are concerned, we teach them now precisely as they 
were taught primitively. The apostle Peter, in the 1st chap- 
ter of his second letter, says : "And besides this, giving all 
diligence, add to your faith virtue ; and to virtue knowledge : 
And to knowledge temperance ; and to temperance patience ; 
and to patience godliness ; And to godliness brotherly kind- 
ness ; and to brotherly kindness charity." "For if ye do these 
things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be 
ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom 
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." And he exhorts them 
to be diligent, to make their calling and election sure, by cul- 
tivating these virtues in their lives. And so we teach the 
church — the members of the church, to-day. We say when 
you have entered the church, though you have believed — 
though you have repented — though you have been buried 
with your Lord in baptism, you are not in heaven. You 
have received the remission of your past sins. You have 
been adopted into the church, or kingdom here, but if you 
desire to enjoy an abundant entrance into the everlasting 
kingdom, you must add to your faith courage, knowledge, 
temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and 
charity, or love. But, not only do we say in the language of 
the Word of God, as the apostle said in primitive times, but, 
also, " Eun with patience the race that is set before you, 
looking unto Jesus, who is the author and finisher of your 
faith." Again: " Be not conformed to this world, but be ye 
transformed by the renewing of your minds, that ye may 



238 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

prove what is that good ; that perfect and acceptable will of 
God." And, we say in the language of the Divine Saviour, 
" Be faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life." 
And in the language of the last chapter of Eevelations, the 
final amen of the Word of God, we say : " Blessed are they 
that do his commandments, that they may have right to the 
tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city ;" 
that if they are faithful in obedience to the authority of Jesus 
Christ, when time shall be no more — when the sun shall be 
blotted out, and the stars shall leap from their places, and 
when the heavens shall be rolled up as a scroll, and the ele- 
ments of this home of man shall melt with fervent heat, and 
all things temporal shall be past and gone forever. And, 
we say to those who obey the commandments of God, that 
they shall then be permitted to put forth their hands and 
pluck the fruit of the ambrosial tree of life, and eat and 
live forever ; that they shall be permitted to walk the golden 
pavements of the New Jerusalem, and enjoy the smiles of the 
living God, through the cycles of a never ending eternity. 

And now we appeal to you, in closing up this proposition 
on the church of Jesus Christ. We submit this proposition 
before your minds, that things equal to the same thing are 
equal to one ariother. With this axiom before your minds, 
and with these characteristics of the church of Jesus Christ: 
first, with regard to the time of its beginning; second, with 
regard to the place of its beginning ; and third, with regard to 
the persons by whom, under the authority of Jesus Christ, 
this church, or kingdom, was begun, viz: at Jerusalem, by 
the apostles, and on the first Pentecost, as admitted by Orchard, 
Duncan, and Jones, and other Baptist authorities, and proved 
by the Word of God ; also, the foundation, the Christ ; and 
the creed, the Word of God ; the head of the church, Jesus ; 
the name given by divine appointment, Christian ; the ordi- 
nances — the Lord's Supper ; baptism ; the one immersion : 



(Dr. Lucas' Eleventh Address. 239 

the officials of the church — the evangelists, the elders, 'and 
the deacons ; the evangelists to gather into the fold of Christ ; 
the elders, or bishops, to take the oversight of the flock; and the 
deacons to attend to the secular affairs of the church. These 
are the official characters of the church. The plan of con- 
version, embracing the faith, its office, its object, and its con- 
nection with obedience, as presented in the Word of God — of 
repentance, of baptism, as presented in the divine volume, 
and the instruction to the members of the church. If what 
we have presented from the Word of God, if this constituted 
the church of Jesus Christ primitively, I ask you, candidly 
and honestly, before God, what do these things mean and con- 
stitute now ? I want you to stop and think seriously and can- 
didly upon this question, if you can. These things, evidently 
from the Word of God, did make the church of Jesus Christ 
primitively, and these things are all in the organization of the 
church to-day to which I belong ; and I ask you, what do 
they make now ? Can they constitute anything less than the 
church of Jesus Christ? I am certain that when you come to 
think seriously and fully upon this subject, you will be con- 
strained to say they constitute no less now than they consti- 
tuted in primitive times the church of Jesus Christ, our 
Lord. 

These arguments have been presented. I ask you to stop 
and think, and run back in your minds, and consider the 
answers that have been made to the arguments submitted. 
Think for a moment what arguments have been submitted, 
and what replies have been made to them. What with re- 
gard to the time of the beginning? While it is true my 
friend said that the law and the prophets were until John, but 
since then the kingdom of God is preached, and he has given 
up the argument upon that subject by admitting that the 
kingdom did not exist in the days of John, by asserting that 
it did not exist until it had its foundation, and the apostles 



240 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

were the foundation. But they were not called until John 
was imprisoned, and Jesus gave them not the kingdom until 
he passed away. 

Now, then, here is the argument that the gentleman fur- 
nishes with regard to the beginning of the kingdom of God. 
He virtually, in these admissions, surrenders to the truth of 
our first argument upon the question. But what with regard 
to the foundation ? Well, has he shown that we were wrong, 
according to the Word of God, upon this subject ? He has 
not. He has quoted here from Campbell, and from Lard, 
and has introduced the letter that Mr. Clay wrote out of 
friendship for Mr. Campbell, that Mr. Campbell never asked 
him for, that Mr. Campbell never expected ; and yet, because 
Mr. Clay said that Mr. Campbell was the head of a respecta- 
ble body of Christians, that therefore he must be that head, 
because Mr. Clay said so, and because Dr. Kice said this, that, 
and the other ; because Jeter said this, that, and the other ; 
and because Williams said this, that, and the other ; and be- 
cause Mr, Bay affirms and denies with a great deal of bold- 
ness and assurance. Why, the thing must be so ! and, there- 
fore, our proposition must be false. 

This is the kind of logic, and the kind of argumentation 
that has been submitted for your consideration to show you 
that our position has been false, and is false. [Time Expired,] 



ELDER RAY'S LAST REPLY. 



Brethren, Moderators, and Respected Audience: I 
stand before you denying the proposition in the concluding 
speech. In regard to my friend's examples from the New 
Testament, I was not certain that I got the chapter and verses. 
If I have the proper ones, he is a little mistaken. The 14th 
chapter of 1st Corinthians, and 37th verse, only has one im- 
perative, and then when he comes to the other passage, as 
found in the 16th and 13th, he finds four imperatives, all of 
the same construction, unless I am mistaken as to what he has 
referred to. But they are not connected together to produce or 
secure similar results to the one named. In regard to the au- 
thorities just mentioned before he sat down, as I did not quote 
what he said about Jones, Duncan and others, I will state that 
they were talking of the location of the first church at Jeru- 
salem. And from all that he read they do not say it was set 
up on the day of Pentecost. They were talking of the church 
as a local body, while we are discussing the term church in the 
sense of kingdom. 

But I read from Wayland, to whom the gentleman has 
referred (page 88), where he explains his views more fully in 
this connection: " The person baptized abjures the world and 
enters into covenant with God. He ivas an enemy to God by 
wicked works, he is now a child of God through faith in his 
Son ; he was dead in sin, he is now alive to God ; the Spirit of 
God dwells in his heart, and to that Spirit he professes to sub- 
ject every thought and purpose, every motive and action. 



242 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

This is what we suppose is meant to be symbolized in the ordi- 
nance of baptism, and hence the meaning of the expression, 
baptized into the name of, or into the Father, and the Son, and 
the Holy Ghost." Thus showing that when we come to the 
context these authors do not sustain the gentleman's doctrine 
of baptismal salvation. 

Again, he denies that Mr. Campbell ever showed his com- 
mendatory letters. Page 548, volume 2, Memoirs — here is 
what Richardson says about it: "Having received highly 
commendatory letters of introduction from Henry Clay and 
others, and being highly favored by the American minister, 
Mr. Bancroft, and other persons of influence, he enjoyed un- 
usual facilities, and everything he wished to see was opened to 
him in the city and in the country." He says that through 
these commendatory letters, as well as the kindness of Mr. 
Bancroft, he obtained access to everything he wanted to see. 
And yet my friend denies that he used the letters. How 
could he get those facilities upon those commendations, if he 
did not use them ? 

Again, he refers to Galatians iii. 26 : " For ye are all the 
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of 
you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." 
That explains the whole matter. We are children of God by 
faith; then baptism is simply putting on — a public profession. 
There is a great difference between a birth, and the putting 
on of the clothing of that one that is born. He loses his argu- 
ment there. 

But, Acts xxii. 16, arise, brother Said, "and be baptized, 
and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 
He can not possibl} r suppose that Paul literally washed his sins 
away. Let me state here, concerning Dr. Lynd, quoting from 
Dr. Hackett, in regard to Acts ii. 38, that Dr. Hackett con- 
nects this as a parallel passage in meaning with Acts ii. 38. 
He says these things are symbolized and figurative in bap- 



Elder (Ray's Last (Reply. 243 

tism, and explains himself. But lie does not support, or sus- 
tain the gentleman's doctrine of no baptism, no salvation, what- 
ever may be his criticism on Acts ii. 38. 

I shall now proceed to recapitulate. I wish you to dis- 
tinctly get before your minds what the gentleman undertook 
to establish, what he undertook to prove. He set out to 
prove that the church organization, of which he himself is a 
member, possesses the Bible characteristics which entitle it to be re- 
garded as the visible church, or kingdom of Jesus Christ— not 
simply to give his views of what the apostolic church was 
when it w T as set up, but the present organization : this one, 
that Dr. Lucas belongs to, is the one w T e are discussing. 
He has missed the question all the time. He might as well 
have been talking in regard to natural philosophy, or an 
eclipse of the moon, or some other theory, as far as his pres- 
ent church is concerned. He has not proved even that his 
brethren possess the characteristics that he mentioned, and 
several of them I emphatically deny, and have shown to the 
contrary. Firstly. He stated that they were the true church, 
because they had the right theory of commencement ! Why 
does he not say that they commenced at the right place ? He 
dare not say his church commenced on the day of Pentecost ; 
but they hold the right theory of commencement ! ! As I re- 
ferred to the Southern Confederacy, a statesman might have 
said, " We are the ancient Grecian empire, because we have 
the theory that the ancient Grecians held HI* No, sir ! He 
must prove identity, and it would have to be a continuation of 
the ancient Grecian empire. But his proposition fails, what- 
ever may be true about the setting up of the church. He 
made a statement that is not exactly correct : it was a little 
mistake. At the very close, almost, of his argument, he said 
I ' 'admitted that the kingdom did not commence in the days 
of John." I never admitted any such thing — never in my 
life. I know what I admitted, and the report will show I 



244 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

said that, as an organization, it was not established until after 
John was put in prison ; and it is admitted John was in 
prison, some say a year and six months ; and the Saviour 
called the apostles and began the organization in the days of 
John, while John was in prison. Then, "The law and the 
prophets were until John : since that time — (I did not say, 
since the beginning of John's preaching — since the days of 
John) — the kingdom of God is preached, and every man 
presseth into it." It is very hard for the Dr. to understand 
my argument ; and he has misconceived it all the time, and, 
therefore, wasted his time upon that point. As the report 
will show, I have shown that his church did not commence at 
the right time. 

But, secondly, he made it as one of his arguments (and I 
have made it as one of my negatives, that it did not), that 
his church commenced at Jerusalem. I have proved from 
Mr. Segar, and from Mr. Moore, that the prime movers in 
that reformation which resulted in the creation of the gentle- 
man's church were in America; that its head-center was at 
Bethany, Virginia, as far from Jerusalem as the broad ex- 
panse of the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea — perhaps 
six thousand miles from the right place. Then, he is abso- 
lutely lost as to the place where the church of Christ first 
started, because he must prove that his identical organization 
began at Jerusalem ! He knows it did not. Here, then, he is 
lost on the second characteristic. 

Thirdly. It is not the church of Christ, or visible church, be- 
cause it has not the proper foundation. Has he answered my 
argument upon this point? I showed that his church first 
began in America, and he has not opened his mouth in reply ; 
nor has he denied the correctness of those historians who lo- 
cate its beginning in Virginia. And if he was confuted in 
nothing else, this would prove that his church is not the one 
that Christ set up. Again : We showed that it was founded 



Elder (Ray's Last (Reply. 245 

on Mr. Campbell's scheme of things, not on Christ ; and I have 
never found an author among his brethren that comes out just 
as he has, and said without addition or subtraction that the 
church is built on the Lord Jesus Christ as the foundation. 
They usually say, on Peter's confession, statement, or proposition, 
or Peter's faith, or something of that sort. He has lately be- 
come partially converted to the truth on this subject. I 
think he has been improved, because in the first discussion we 
had, he said it was upon the truth of Peter's confession, or upon 
Peter's confession. 

Mr. Lucas — I did not say it, sir. 

Mr. Ray — But, then, he is learning better in regard to the 
subject. 

Mr. Lucas — I did not say it. I rise to a question of order. 
He is introducing new matter, and I say I did not say it. 

Mr. Ray — I introduced the statement before, I think. 

Mr. Lucas — I rise to a question of order. No, sir ; you 
did not. I understand these little maneuvers in last speeches. 

Mr. Ray — As he has made a contradiction, and I have it 
in my notes, I know he said it, and I know he forgot about 
what the brother said in his prayer. 

Mr. Lucas — I know I did not say it. 

President Smith (one of the Moderators) — I will just 
call the gentleman to order. It is my understanding, and my 
recollection, and also President Cook's recollection, that this 
matter has not been introduced before, with reference to the 
Blandinville debate, with reference to the confession — that 
particular point. 

Mr. Ray — I know I made that point in the discussion. 
Whether I referred to what he said at either place, I won't 
say. 

President Cook, (one of the Moderators) — The gentle- 
men have been referring to each of the debates previous to 
this, in regard to one thing and another ; but as I have paid 



246 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

very little attention to these incidental references which have 
been made, I can not say whether the subject has been intro- 
duced before this or not. 

Mr. Ray — I know the point has been introduced fre- 
quently, and the report will show that it is in regard to the 
confession, and I stated that — 

Mr. Lucas — You have stated several times in this discus- 
sion what the position of Franklin and others was ; that it 
was founded on the confession, but you have not referred to 
the Blandinville debate, or any other debate, that I said it 
was founded on the confession, for I never said so; for I 
never believed it in that sense in which you use it ; and, 
therefore, I know I never said it in the Blandinville debate, 
or any other debate. 

Mr. Bay — Just let it pass then. I shall prove what I said 
as several took it down, and it will be proved hereafter. I 
hope my time, taken up in this manner, will not be taken out 
of my reply.* 

Mr. Lucas — Give him all the time he wants. 

Mr. Bay — I sympathize very much w T ith the Dr., but, 
then, his doctrine is wrong, and I can not spare that. It is 
not the church- of the living God, because it has not the Bible 
foundation ; and I showed from Mr. Campbell that his scheme 
of things, which he called the ancient gospel, was the foundation 
of his church ; and I read here a quotation showing that one 
of their prominent historians, Mr. Segar, regarded the Chris- 
tian System as their fundamental doctrinal work. Did he deny 
it ? Did he refer to it ? Not one word. 

Again, fourthly, it is not in the church of the living God, 
because it inverts the order of God's commandments — repentance, 
faith, baptism, and the Lord's Supper, at his table in his kingdom. 
To this time the Dr. has not replied to that argument. He 

* In the Blandmville debate, Dr. Lucas explained the language of Jesus to Peter thus: 
" On the confession that you have made," " will I build my church."—!). B. Ray. 



Elder (Ray's Last (Reply. 247 

passed it by as silent as the grave ! I proved from my 
friend's own authors that they inverted God's plan of salva- 
tion, and God's ordinances. Jesus preached repentance and 
faith. Paul testified to the Jews and Greeks — repentance 
toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. 
But the Dr. passed it by I He Jailed to reply. It is not the 
church of the living God. 

Then, fifthly, it is not the church of God— the visible king- 
dom, because it is defective in its government and officers, and 
when we called upon the Dr. to give Bible authority for 
having two classes, preaching and lay elders, he failed to do 
so. And when we called on him for the authority for taking 
the discipline out of the hands of the membership of the 
church and placing in that class of elders, he was as silent as 
the tomb. He did not open his mouth in regard to the argu- 
ment. He simply said, " we have the Bible officers," and, 
therefore, we must take the testimony of Dr. Lucas, without 
proof. His testimony, however, is not altogether good with- 
out proof. 

Sixthly, it is not the church of Jesus Christ, because it denies 
the personal work of the Holy Spirit in conversion. Did any 
one ever repent of his sins and become a child of God, with- 
out the personal aid of the Holy Spirit ? I referred him to 
the fact, that in the conversion of Lydia the Lord opened her 
heart; that she attended to the things that were spoken of 
Paul, but the Dr. cared not to open his mouth on the subject. 
He forgot and failed to answer one word upon that subject, 
and he has not done so in any former discussion ! 

And, seventhly, my friend's church is not the church of the 
living God, because it is a bundle of contradictions. It admits 
of such a diversity of view T s. — just to believe one fact, and 
submit to one act immersion — and thus harboring almost all the 
errors of fifteen centuries. Whether Unitananism or Uni- 
versalism; whether denying the resurrection of infants, or 



243 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

teaching the doctrine of annihilation, they can all find a home 
in the gentleman's church. Mr. Campbell confesses that all 
sorts of doctrine is preached, by nearly all sorts of preachers, under 
the broad banners, and with the supposed sanction of the reforma- 
tion. I say, then, with such a multitude of errors and con- 
tradictory doctrines, it is not the church of the living God. 

And, eighthly, it is not the church of Christ, because it is 
not the martyr church. The true church of the living God suf- 
fered martyrdom — I mean, in its members — by the thousands 
and tens of thousands. The members of his church have 
never suffered martyrdom — not one. As far as is known to 
'me, not one drop of martyr blood has ever been spilled in de- 
fense of the church of which the gentleman is the representa- 
tive to-night. 

But, ninthly, his is not the church of Christ, because it holds 
the Popish error of church salvation, that out of the church there is 
no salvation. This I proved from Lipscomb, and from other 
authors, that out of the church no man can be saved, and that 
the church has power to give eternal life to all its members. 
This is an error, because there is only one name given in 
heaven or among men whereby we must be saved. 

Tenthly. I showed it is not the true church of Christ, be- 
cause they introduce improper materials into their organization. 
They propose to take in one who is a sinner : I mean by that, 
to baptize sinners in order that they may become Christians ; 
they baptize one who is a child of Satan, one who has not be- 
come reconciled to God ! This is one of my arguments the 
gentleman passed over in silence. He forgot to meet it ! I It 
is not the church of Christ on this account. 

And, eleventhly, it holds the fearful error of baptismal salva- 
tion, that without baptism there is no pardon of sins— there is no 
new birth. It is true they contradict themselves, and say 
that God will sometimes save men without baptism ; and yet 
they say that baptism is essential to pardon! It is a little 



Elder (Ray's Last (Reply. 249 

on this side, and a little on that side. Men are saved in prison 
without baptism, and men are saved among the Pedobaptists, 
as children of God and brethren, without baptism. And yet 
baptism is essential to salvation ! And, then, the heathen, 
where they have no ability to be baptized, are saved without 
baptism ; and so it is a system of contradictions, and not au- 
thorized in the precious word of God. 

Twelfthly. We have shown that in numberless instances, 
from the founder down, among the prominent writers, the 
Disciples manifest an unkindly spirit to those who examine 
their claims. They speak disparagingly of Baptists, who have 
the right to investigate the claims of every church, of every 
error, and every truth; to examine it, and to try it in the 
very crucible of God's word. 

Thirteenthly. I have shown that it is not the true church 
of Christ, because it is destitute of Bible repentance, and it is 
destitute of Bible faith. I do not mean that there are none 
among them that ever repent. I do not mean that there are 
none that are God's children among them, in spite of the 
errors of the church. I believe there are some of God's chil- 
dren in that church, but yet they are not in the church of 
Christ. n " Other sheep I have," said the Saviour, "which are 
not of this fold." There are some of God's children in Baby- 
lon, as he said, and, then, there are some not in Babylon that 
are God's children, and not in the church of the living God. 
And, as I have referred to his argument where he admitted, 
, at least in effect, that if the succession is true, if the first 
church has been perpetuated up to the present time, then his 
argument has failed. 

I have shown from his own writers, Tolbert Fanning, Isaac 
Errett, Moses Lard, Benj. Franklin, and Alexander Camp- 
bell, that the church has stood to the present time. I add to 
this testimony David Lipscomb ; and they all say that it has 
stood 1800 years to the present time. 



250 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

As the gentleman belongs to a church of the present centu- 
ry, formed under the auspices of Alexander Campbell, it is 
not the church of Christ. I believe the Dr., without in- 
tending it, has admitted the succession at last. He affirmed 
that God has always had a people in Babylon, but they are 
not the visible church. This he affirmed in two former dis- 
cussions. He affirmed that out of the kingdom of Christ there 
is no remission of sins. Then those people of God whose sins 
were remitted, were in the kingdom of Christ, and as God's 
people have continued from the time of Christ down to the 
present time, and as none out, of the kingdom can be God's 
people, then the kingdom has stood ; and as the society that 
he represents has not stood, but commenced in the present 
century, about forty -six years ago, then it is not the Church 
of Christ, according to his own admissions — according to his 
own arguments. But how did he meet the arguments in re- 
gard to the perpetuity of the church, in regard to the succes- 
sion — that the church had stood — when I called his attention 
to Luke i. 33, where the angel said to Mary that "He shall 
reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom 
there shall be no end." That kingdom was to stand forever, 
that kingdom was to have no end ; that kingdom, then, is some- 
where, that kingdom exists to-night as the kingdom of our 
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. That passage from Hebrews 
which says, ' 'receiving a kingdom which can not be moved," that 
kingdom has not been shaken, that kingdom has not been 
moved. 

And then from the prophecy of Daniel, where it is said the 
God of heaven shall set up a kingdom which shall not be destroyed, 
shall not be left to other people ; it shall break in pieces and consume 
all those kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. That kingdom 
is still standing, that kingdom is to stand through the coming 
ages. 

It has been the martyr church long before the voice of 



Elder (Ray's Last (Reply, 251 

Luther was heard at the Diet of Worms, long before Calvin 
emerged from the bosom of the Catholic church ; and that 
kingdom was battling for the truth of God before Henry was 
divorced from his wife and married Anne Boleyn, and became 
the head of the British church ; that kingdom rallied under 
the blood-stained banner of the cross, battling for the truth 
of God amid the frowning monarchies of old continental 
Europe, while from the seven-hilled city, that triple-crowned 
tyrant fulminated his anathemas against the world, and 
sent out crusading armies to break the succession and 
destroy the church of the living God ; and yet it stands, and 
has stood. 

Men have tried with fire and faggots to destroy it, the devil 
has used all his ingenuity to overthrow that kingdom, wicked 
men have opposed it, and sectarians have attempted to set it 
aside, yet that kingdom stands. I thank God for the prospect, 
that at last in that good time that my friend talks about so 
eloquently, w T hen at last the stars of heaven shall fall, and the 
moon grow pale and turn to blood, and Christ shall come, the 
bride will not be a reformed churchy it will be the same identi- 
cal kingdom, the church of the living God — that bride — the 
Lambs wife that has borne on her bosom the emblems of the 
dying Saviour in the Lord's supper, and the token and remem- 
brance of his resurrection in baptism. 

It will be at the time that she will be caught up to meet the 
coming Saviour. Oh, for that glorious day when the triumph 
of the church shall come. It will not be a man-made church, 
not one of only thirty or forty years' existence, but the church, 
tlie bride, the Lamb's wife, that was hid in the wilderness, where 
she was preserved, surrounded by the mighty ramparts of 
those mountain fastnesses that God prepared for her when he 
made a home for his bride. 

It will be the church of the living God that has stood all 
the time. There will be a time of triumph, there will be a 



252 (Disciples' Church Claims. 

time of exultation, for though she has come through bloody 
seas, yet there will be a time to sing the song of triumph. 

While others persecuted, she has persecuted no one, but has 
suffered for the cause of the Master. This is the church of 
which Jesus said, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
it ;" this is the church concerning which he said, "Lo, I am 
with you alway, even unto the end of the world." 

Brethren, when you take away from me that truth of God's 
word, and say that his promise has failed — his kingdom has had 
an end — then I must fold up this old Jerusalem sword, that 
sword of the spirit, this Bible that the church has ever loved 
more than all else on earth. It is the word of God that calls 
me to labor on, to toil for that cause and for that kingdom ; 
but if the Saviour's word has failed, and that kingdom has 
been prevailed against, if that church has ever come to an 
end, if there has ever been an hour since it was first set up 
when there was no church, then the church of the living God 
has ceased to exist, and there is not a witness for the church of 
God, not one voice in all the world. 

Darkness, black as Egypt, 'the type of eternal night, will 
settle on our earth. No church of Jesus Christ on earth ! I 
say, if you make me believe that, I must deny the word of 
God, and become a skeptic — I must become an infidel. But, 
no ! let yonder heavens first pass away with a great noise, let the 
elements take fire and be consumed with fervent heat, yet God's 
word will stand. If history was a total blank, except the prophetic 
word — except the inspired word — if all the past was blotted out, 
and there was not one line left to mark the footprints of the church 
of the living God, I would plant myself on the eternal truth 
of God, and I would stand against all skepticism and the powers 
of hell itself, and I ivoidd say, the church has stood to the 

PRESENT TIME. [TlME EXPIRED.] 



^fifth ©x>emn<3. 



ELDER RAY'S OPENING ADDRESS. 



SECOND PROPOSITION. 

Hon. John M. Glover, President Moderator : The 
proposition for discussion to-night is the following: " The 
church organization with , which I (D. B. Kay) stand identi- 
fied, known by my brethren as the Baptist Church, possesses 
the Bible characteristics, which entitle it to be regarded as the- 
visible church, or kingdom of Jesus Christ." D. B. Eay, 
affirming; J. R. Lucas, denying. 

Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, and Respected 
Audience : I appear in your presence at the present time in 
support of the proposition read in your hearing, that the Bap- 
tists, with whom I stand identified, possess the Bible charac- 
teristics which entitle them to be regarded as the visible 
church, or kingdom of Jesus Christ. 

The great mass of religionists, outside of the pale of the 
Baptist Church, seem to be at a loss to understand Baptist 
doctrine and Baptist history. Like some of olden time, when 
the question w T as propounded concerning the baptism of John, 
whether from heaven, or of men, they said : "We can not tell." 
I have the happiness, the honor, shall I say, of being identified 
with the largest religious community upon this continent, out- 
side the church of Rome — I mean of those who count adult 



254 (Baptist Church Claims. 

membership — numbering largely on to two millions. While 
some are disposed not to know, or to understand our denomina- 
tional character and standing in society, I will state, that from 
the statistical reports for the present year it appears w T e have 
about one hundred colleges, universities, and high schools, in- 
cluding theological schools, in the United States alone ; some 
six, I believe, in Great Britain, and one in the city of Rome. 
And throughout every land and every country upon earth, 
our churches and our membership are contending for the faith 
once delivered to the saints. I say, with but little exception, 
they extend around this earthly ball — in the South Sea 
Islands, in the old world, in continental Europe, in Germany, 
Italy, Austria, Poland, Sweden — they are found throughout 
the entire land. We have in America, I believe, about fifty 
religious periodicals, and the largest Sunday school interest 
of any denomination in America. We number nearly tw T enty 
thousand ministers, and a membership by the million — taking 
all together upon the earth — who are contending for the truth 
of the living God. I wish, before I proceed to define more 
particularly the characteristics of the Baptists, to call your at- 
tention more especially to the proposition. The word church 
is from the Greek word ecclesia. It, in the proposition, is not 
used in its primary sense. It is agreed upon all hands that 
the primary meaning of the word points out a local assembly y 
and, when used in classic Greek, simply had reference to a 
congregation called out for whatever purpose it may have been 
gathered, but when appropriated by the Saviour to indicate 
his followers — his disciples — he applied it to his called out — 
those who were separated and called out from the world. It 
is most generally, or nearly altogether, used in the New Testa- 
ment with reference to local assemblies ; consequently, we 
have the " churches of Galatia," "the churches of Asia," and 
followers of the churches of God," etc. We believe, in some 
instances, however, that the term church is used out of its 



Elder (kay's Opening Address. 255 

primary sense — in the sense of kingdom — to embrace the en- 
tire membership of all the local churches. I find in one of the 
late editions of the new translation by the Bible Union — a 
translation of Acts ix. 31, thus: "The church, therefore, 
throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, had peace, 
being built up," etc., while in the old translation it is 
" churches." And I find this rendering sustained by the 
most critical authorities. Those who are best versed in the 
ancient manuscripts decide, that church is the word used by the 
Holy Spirit in this case. And in Mat. xvi, 18 — so often re- 
ferred to in this discussion — "Upon this rock I will build my 
church." We understand the term church to be used here in 
that larger sense — not simply confined to a local congre- 
gation — because that congregation did not always remain 
in Jerusalem; it was dispersed and scattered, and yet 
he was to be with that church to the end of the world. 
I will say, however, I suppose there will be no dispute 
between myself and my worthy friend in regard to the 
use of the term " church " in the proposition, because he uses 
that word in the larger sense, as I do, in his proposition. I 
will here make a quotation, because I like, whenever I can, to 
strengthen my position by reference to the brethren, who have 
weight and influence. I will, therefore, read an extract in 
regard to the use of the terms church and kingdom: "We 
should feel obliged to any one who will produce one instance 
where the phrases ' the kingdom of Christ ' and the ' church 
of Christ' refer to different institutions. A church of Christ 
differs from the church as a part differs from the whole, but 
we think that church and the kingdom of Christ refer to the 
self-same institution ; and though they may never have been 
translated by the same phrase, it is no evidence they do not 
refer to the same organization. ' The kingdom of heaven ' and 
the kingdom of God's dear Son, and the church of Christ, 
we also think refer to the self-same organism — the visible 



256 (Baptist Church Claims. 

churches, considered as one institution, under one headship." 
— J. R. Graves, editor of the Baptist. 

This shows that he has this same view in regard to the use 
of the term church in the enlarged sense of kingdom. As re- 
gards the term Baptist in this proposition, I do not contend 
that the identical phrase Baptist Church is found in the New 
Testament, any more than the phrase Christian Church ; but, 
as the name Baptist — Baptistes — in the original was applied 
by divine authority to the first man authorized to administer 
baptism, and as baptism was left in the custody of the 
churches of the Lord Jesus Christ, and they administer bap- 
tism, through their servants, they are Baptist churches, in the 
sense of administering baptism by church authority under 
Christ. Then, the use of the term Baptist contravenes no 
part of God's word. In fact, in this sense I understand that 
it has the Bible sanction, though the phrase Baptist Church is 
not found, just in those words, in the Scriptures. Then, 
when we use that term we do not build an argument upon 
the name, in order to sustain the validity of our claims, be- 
cause names and nicknames may be applied to the very same 
institution. A man in America may be called by one name ; 
he may go abroad, and from some circumstance his name may 
have become changed, or one name may have fallen into dis- 
use, and he may be called by another name ; but this would 
not prove that the man was a different man. Then, the iden- 
tity of the church of the living God is not to be established 
by the name. Let me remark just here, that there is no au- 
thority, even in God's word, to contend that any one denomina- 
tional name was ever given to the church as an organization. If 
it were so, my worthy friend would have found it. God's children 
have been called by various names, when considered in their 
relations to God, the Father, and Jesus Christ, or the plan of 
salvation. They are called saints, disciples, sheep, brethren, a 
great variety of names ; but no denominational name is given. 



Elder (Ray's Opening Address. 257 

* > ■ — - — ■ ■ — • 

I have called upon this intelligent audience, if such is the 
case, to point to the chapter and verse. Where is the de- 
nominational name by which the- church is to be called, to the 
exclusion of all others ? 

But, in regard to the Baptists, the Baptists with whom we 
stand identified. As I have already remarked, they are found 
in all the civilized nations of the earth, and among the unciv- 
ilized, taking the lead by the advancement of " soul liberty." 
America owes largely her liberties to the Baptists of the days 
that are past. And even England herself owes a debt of 
gratitude to the Baptists for the enlarged liberties they enjoy, 
♦ in breaking away from the former yoke of tyranny and op- 
pression. 

I wish to call the attention of the people again to the 
momentous and the responsible position we occupy this 
evening, in the light of God, angels, and dying men, in regard 
to the church, or kingdom of Jesus Christ. But, before attempt- 
ing to show that there is such an institution now upon the earth, 
let me say, dear friends, that there has never been but two 
divinely set up, or sanctioned, governments on earth. The 
first of these was the old Jewish theocracy, a political govern- 
ment, with many religious privileges, inaugurated under the 
direction and watchful care of the Almighty. Its constitu- 
tion was brought down from the flaming summit of Sinai. 
Through succeeding generations that kingdom was a shadow of 
better things to come, and, in some respects, a type of that 
spiritual Israel, that church of the living God that should be 
set up in the last times. When the fulfillment of the 
prophecy came, that kingdom was set up. While, now, hun- 
dreds of churches or societies claim to represent that king- 
dom, and demand respect and consideration at the hands of 
an enlightened people, it is evident that they can not all be 
the veritable kingdom of Jesus Christ. But we have fallen 
upon times when every great reformer, every great mail with 



253 (Baptist Church Claims. 

— . , , , — 

superior talents, feels fully authorized to inaugurate a refor- 
mation, or to set up a new organization. But if they could 
understand the divine pattern and plan of organization, and 
that God has called no man, or set of men, to perform this 
work, they certainly would not presume to attempt something 
for which God has never called them. Men, for ages past, 
have discussed, controverted, and fought over the dry bones of 
theological abstractions concerning the design of an ordi- 
nance, in regard to the " mode" and subjects of baptism, in 
regard to some of the points of doctrine ; but now the time has 
come for the battle of the churches, when we may stand up, man to 
man, and society to society, and contend for church or no church. 
We ask, where is the kingdom of the living God ? or, has 
God's word failed, and left the world in darkness, as regards 
the church of the Son of God ? 

But, in regard to who the Baptists are, I wish to call your 
attention to some authorities. I will read from the New 
American Cyclopedia (edited by George Ripley and Charles 
A. Dana; published by Apple ton & Co., New York), from 
an article on " The Baptists." I do this because there are 
some people who have a poor conception of the Baptists. 
My worthy friend, in the previous discussion, seemed not to 
know the extent of the proposition he denied, and seemed 
utterly at a loss to understand it. I hope he has improved 
by this time, so that he will not be under the necessity of in- 
quiring, "Who are the Baptists?" I call your attention to 
page 596 of the American Cyclopedia : " The Baptists, 
properly defined, are those who hold that the baptism of 
Christian believers is of universal obligation, and practice ac- 
cordingly. And they hold this because they acknowledge no 
master but Christ ; no rule of faith but his word ; no baptism 
but that which is preceded and hallowed by personal piety ; 
no church but that which is the body of Christ, pervaded, 
governed, and animated by his spirit. Whatever diversities 



Elder (Ray's Opening Address. • 259 

of opinion and usage are found among them, these are their 
common and characteristic principles ; by these they are 
known and distinguished in every country, and in every age." 
I would remark, that the editors of this w T ork are not Bap- 
tists, but they are men who are impartial, so far as these 
great questions are concerned ; and if they have any partial- 
ity, it would not be in our favor. But, then, again : I call 
your attention to the next page, p. 597 : " On the subject of 
church communion, the Baptists generally agree with other 
denominations, that it is not proper before baptism. As they 
find no exception to this rule in the New Testament, they do 
not feel authorized to invite those who are not, in their view, 
duly baptized, to unite with them at the Lord's table, however 
highly they esteem them. They profess in this limitation of 
church communion, that they do not judge the consciences of 
others, but seek to preserve their own. Open communion, so 
eloquently advocated by Robert Hall, in England, the Bap- 
tists of the United States regard as an anomaly. Yet, while 
holding these views, they claim to feel a cordial sympathy 
with other evangelical denominations, and rejoice to co-operate 
with them, as far as possible, in the work of Christ." And, 
then, again, on page 599, your attention is called to the follow- 
ing : " Their ministers preach the gospel freely, with a warm 
application to the conscience, and to the heart. No denom- 
ination is more characterized by experimental piety. The 
evidence of its possession is always required of candidates for 
baptism." And, again: "The Baptists, as will be evident 
from the above exposition of their principles, claim their ori- 
gin from the ministry of Christ and his apostles." And this, 
I would remark, is the claim of Baptists generally. But, 
then, again: "They further claim that all the Christian 
churches of the first two centuries after Christ were founded 
and built up on the principles they profess ; in proof of which 
they appeal to the high critical authorities m chui-ch history, 



260 (Baptist Church Claims. 

Mosheim, Neander, Hagenbach, Jacobi, and Bunsen. They 
further claim to be able to trace their history in a succession 
of pure churches (cathari), essentially Baptist, though under 
various names, from the third century down to the refor- 
mation. These churches, from the fifth century onward, 
were the subjects of systematic persecutions from the state 
churches, both in the East and in the West." Then, again : 
" In the opinion of Sir Isaac Newton, as reported by Whiston, 
1 the Baptists are the only body of Christians that has not 
symbolized with the Church of Rome/" 

I would like to emphasize that statement here, that that 
great man, Sir Isaac Newton, admits that the Baptists are the 
only body of Christians that have never symbolized with the Church 
of Rome ! Again, on page 599 : " Mr. Bancroft has summed 
up the matter in a few pregnant words: * With greater con- 
sistency than Luther, they applied the doctrines of the refor- 
mation to the social positions of life, and threatened an end to 
priestcraft and kingcraft, spiritual dominion, titles, and vas- 
salage. They were trodden under foot with foul reproaches 
and most arrogant scorn, and their history is written in the 
blood of thousands of the German peasantry ; but their prin- 
ciples, secure in their immortality, escaped with Roger 
Williams to Providence, and his colony is witness that, natur- 
ally, the paths of the Baptists are the paths of freedom, pleas- 
antness, and peace.' " And, again, on page 599: "Mr. 
Locke has truly said : * The Baptists were from the begin- 
ning the friends of liberty ; just and true liberty ; equal and 
impartial liberty.' " Again, on the same page : "It was the 
share which the Baptists took, says Dr. Williams, in shoring 
up the fallen liberties of England, and in infusing new vigor 
and liberality into the Constitution of that country, that is 
not generally known ; yet, to this body English liberty owes 
a debt it can never acknowledge. Among the Baptists Chris- 
tian freedom found its earliest, its staunchest, its most consist- 



Elder (Ray's Opening Address. 261 

ent, and its most disinterested champions." Again, page 600 : 
Yet, ' ' persecuted themselves, it is their glory never to have 
persecuted others." Again: "The article on religious lib- 
erty in the amendments to the American Constitution was in- 
troduced into it by the united efforts of the Baptists in 1789." 

I might read many other extracts to show something of the 
influence of the Baptists, their principles, and their doctrine 
that has been advocated in the various parts of the world, 
through all ages. 

Now, I proceed to call you to note the fact, that I am not 
contending about those little parties that some historians call 
minor sects among the Baptists. I will call the attention of 
my friend especially to the fact that in all the books concern- 
ing religious denominations, those with whom we are associated 
are simply called "Baptists," without any other qualifying 
term. There are factions and little associations, some of whom 
have gone out from us, it is true, and some have been organ- 
ized by others that had no sort of connection with us. They 
are usually called by some other name. For instance, those 
that are denominated free will Baptists, mainly in the East, 
were set up and organized by one Mr. Randall, I believe. 
They have never had any association with the great Bap- 
tist family. Thus, some historians class the gentleman's 
church among the Baptists, and call them "Campbellite Bap- 
tists !" When the Dr. talks of a great diversity of denomi- 
national names, they usually belong to the same class. Then, 
again, there are some that are called Dunkers, those that have 
never had any association with us. Then there are the Wine- 
brennerians, calling themselves "the church of God," and the 
Swedenborgians, and so on. Then, there are some of the 
Antinomian brethren that broke off from the regular Baptist 
churches, or from the Baptists, about 1832. But I am here 
contending for the claims of the Baptists, and it will be de- 
veloped in this discussion what the leading characteristics and 



262 (Baptist Church Claims. 

peculiarities of the Baptists are. Jill who hold and possess 
these doctrinal points, it matters not with me what they may be 
nicknamed, I would class as a part of the great Baptist family, 
identical with us in doctrine, even if they were nicknamed by 
something else. 

Before I proceed to my first affirmative argument, I will 
simply state it, and call your attention to a mistake into which 
the world, or a large class, have unfortunately fallen. I state 
here, however, that the Baptists possess the Bible characteristics of 
the church of Christ, because they have the Bible succession and 
hold the other peculiarities that characterize the true church 
of the living God. I simply call your attention just at this 
moment to the proof-texts introduced in the former proposi- 
tions, showing to an infallible certainty that the kingdom of 
Christ has no end. It has the succession. It has been per- 
petuated. It has stood until the present time. But to return, 
a large class of persons have come to the conclusion, because 
of their want of information in regard to ancient church his- 
tory, that the original kingdom of Christ, or church of the 
living God, became apostate, became extinct, and for long and 
dreary centuries there was no church of God in the world, 
and I believe my friend has taken that position, and denied 
the perpetuity of the church. 

I have asked him to tell me at what period of the world's 
history the original church apostatized and became extinct, 
but he proposes not to answer, though discussing this very 
church question. He says it is not pertinent to the question ! 
because when he answers he knows he is in a difficulty so deep 
that he will be buried. I ask him to tell this people where 
the church was revived, where the second church, the third, 
or fourth, if you please, was set up ! But he dares not answer. 
The fearful error into which men have fallen is, that the 
church of Home either is now or was once the true church of 
Christ, and that she became apostate, and consequently men 



Elder (Ray's Opening Address. 263 

have set about the pious work of trying to reform that apostate 
church, to make the true church of Christ ! I want to intro- 
duce the Scriptures now, to show that such is not the case, 
that the church of Rome is not now the church of Christ ; 
that the church of Rome never was the church of Christ ; and 
that the church of Rome never will be the church of Christ. 
I wish to call your attention to those passages upon which I 
suppose there will be no dispute. First, 2d Thessalonians — 
I will commence reading with the 3d verse, 2d chapter : "Let 
no man deceive you by any means, for that day shall not come, 
except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be 
revealed, the son of perdition ; who opposeth and exalteth him- 
self above all that is called God, or that is worshiped ; so that 
he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that 
he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, 
I told you these things f And now ye know what withholdeth 
that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of 
iniquity doth already work : only he who now letteth will let, 
until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wick- 
ed be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit 
of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his 
coming." God is not going to reform that mystery of iniquity, 
that false church, but he will consume it with the breath of 
his mouth, and destiny it by the brightness of his coming. 
"Even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with 
all power and signs of lying wonders." The coming of this 
Romish apostasy, all commentators, I believe, agree, that this 
second chapter of 2d Thessalonians has reference to the church 
of Rome. "And his coming was after the working of Satan, 
with all power and signs and lying wonders." It can not be the 
true church, then, that came in such a way. But the tenth 
verse: "With all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them 
that perish ; because they received not the love of the truth, 
that they might be saved." And, again, I call your attention 



264 (Baptist Church Claims. 

to Revelations xvii. 3-6 : "So he carried me away in the spirit 
into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet 
colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads 
and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and 
scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and 
pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations 
and filth iness of her fornication : and upon her forehead was 
a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, 
THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS 
OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with 
the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of 
Jesus : and when I saw her, I wondered with great admira- 
tion." The original says with great astonishment. All. Prot- 
estant commentators, including Scott, Newton and Clark, all, 
I believe, testify with one voice that this symbolical woman 
that was seated upon the scarlet beast represented the church 
of Rome, that false church that was soon to rise out of the pit ; 
and when she first made her appearance on earth in prophetic 
vision, we see that woman drunken with the blood of the 
saints, reeling in her intoxication, riding the bloody beast and 
blaspheming the name of God, and with that awful name 
written upon her forehead ! And what a fearful absurdity for 
any man in his senses to suppose that this sad, dark, fearful 
picture is the representative of the bride of Christ, the church 
of the living God. No. It is the false church. 

And I wish your attention again to the fact that that 
church is not to be reformed. I read from the 18th chapter of 
Reyelations, 1st to 4th verses : "And after these things I saw 
another angel come down from heaven, having great power ; 
and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried 
mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is 
fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and 
the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and 
hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the 



Elder (Ray's Opening Address. 265 

wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have com- 
mitted fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth 
are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And 
I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, 
my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye 
receive not of her plagues." Thus showing that this Babylon, 
which was the same represented by that false woman, is to fall ; 
that the world was to see the time when that Babylon was to 
become a den of thieves, and a voice from heaven cried — not 
to reform her — but " Come out of her, my people, lest ye be par- 
takers of her plagues" Where is the authority, then, for any 
man to claim this as once the true church ? This was the 
grand mistake of Luther, of Calvin, of Melancthon, of 
Zwingli, and of Henry the VIII., when they undertook to 
reform that mighty and despotic power, the Church of Eome, 
which comes down to us dripping with the blood of fifty mil- 
lions of the saints of God, and whose lips are foul with fiend- 
ish blasphemy ; whose Pope has, in former ages, set his feet 
upon the necks of kings and emperors ; who has crushed the 
world and filled the whole earth with superstition, idolatry, 
and ignorance ; and yet, theologians (?) some of them, tell us 
that the Church of Eome was once the church of Christ ! — 
that she was once the bride of the lamb of God! No : It is a 
slander, shall I say, upon the fair bride of Christ ; it is a re- 
proach upon the name of Jesus ; it is a reproach upon the 
power of the living God, who said he would preserve his 
church unto the end. But I wish your attention to the fall of 
that false church — not to its reformation — Revelations xviii. 
20, 21 : " Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles 
and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her. And a 
mighty angel took up a stone like a great mill-stone, and cast 
it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city 
Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more." Notice 
this prophetic declaration. John was permitted at last to see 



266 (Baptist Church Claims. 

a mighty angel when he seized the mill-stone, and with fearful 
violence hurled it into the sea, and said : " Thus with violence 
shall Babylon be — reformed ? no — shall Babylon be destroyed. 

I learn, dear friends, that the smoke of her torment is to 
ascend up before God, forever and ever, and that she is to be 
burned with fire, and destroyed. I believe that fearful day of 
her trial is not very far in the future. And yet, I hear men, 
in their folly — wise men, and great men, and men well 
informed upon some subjects — who say that that old blas- 
phemous, idolatrous Anti-christ was once the church of the 
living God ! 

Your attention is invited again, dear friends, to the testi- 
mony, or statements of God's word, in regard to the perpetuity 
of his church — and I want my friend particularly and cate- 
gorically to notice every passage introduced — and if they do 
not teach the perpetuity of the church of the living God, I 
wish him to tell this people what they do teach. I press it 
upon him. I want your attention again to these prophetic 
Scriptures, Daniel ii. 44 : "And in the days of these kings 
shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, w r hich shall never 
be destroyed : and the kingdom shall not be left to other peo- 
ple, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these king- 
doms, and it shall stand forever." Also, Daniel ii. 35 : "And 
the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and 
filled the whole earth. " That stone was the symbol that Ne- 
buchadnezzar saw. Daniel interpreted the meaning of that 
stone, smiting the image and rolling on without any inter- 
mission, until that same little stone (first cut out of the moun- 
tain without hands) became a great mountain, and filled the 
whole earth, to be the kingdom of God. This is understood 
to be a prophecy concerning the kingdom of Christ, set up by 
Jesus Christ, the God of heaven. Please, Dr., will you tell 
me what that means ; and please face that passage squarely, 
and tell me, does that have reference to the setting up of the 



Elder (Ray's Opening Address. 267 

kingdom of Christ ? If not, what does it mean ? And when 
it says, " shall not be destroyed, does that mean sliall be. de- 
stroyed t When it says, " it shall stand forever/' does " forever " 
mean a day or two, or a year or two, and then come to nothing ? 
How will you meet the Universalist, when you say forever or 
endless has a limitation — it may come to an end in a few days 
or years ? I say, dear friends, that unless endless is limited, 
that it must continue forever, co-eternal with God's throne 
itself, I do not believe that the bride — the church of 
Christ — will be destroyed. When Christ comes, I believe 
that she will be that grand city that John saw, descending from 
God out of heaven, in the last day, when caught up to meet 
the Lord in the air. That church will stand forever. 

As previously quoted, 1st Tim. iii. 15 : " But if I tarry 
long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave 
thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living 
God, the pillar and ground of the truth." And, then, in this 
connection, the passage in Micah iv. 1, and " it shall come to 
pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be es- 
tablished in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted 
above the hills." In that last day, which is yet unfulfilled — 
this part of that prediction — the same that Paul called the 
Lord's house — the pillar and ground of truth — that Lord's 
house becomes a great mountain, and shall be exalted in the 
top of the mountains. I wish the gentleman to take hold of 
these passages, and if that church has been destroyed, and be- 
come extinct, I wish him to introduce the proof, and not 
pass it by as he has been in the habit of doing. 

But my friend introduced a Scripture heretofore, and tried 
to prove that the church become extinct, because the saints 
were persecuted for 1260 years ; but, in Daniel vii. 27, we 
have the statement that "the kingdom and dominion, 
and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, 
shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, 



268 (Baptist Church Claims. 

whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions 
shall serve and obey him." Here, then, in the very chapter 
by which the gentleman attempted to prove that the kingdom 
became extinct, God says, that kingdom is an everlasting kingdom. 
The Dr. must prove that everlasting does not mean everlasting 
in this connection ; that that kingdom is to have an end. 

Again, Mat. xvi. 18 : "And the gates of hell shall not pre- 
vail against it." But the Dr.'s attempted criticism, saying, 
that " it" has reference to " rock" — foundation — fails, because 
I have shown, by at least half a dozen of the brightest lights 
in the gentleman's church, who have considered this sub- 
ject, that "it" refers to "church." That church has stood 
until the present time, and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against the church. It shall stand firmly is the voice of the pro- 
phecy. I wish him to take up every one of these passages and 
show, as he has not shown heretofore, and as he has not been 
able to show, that the succession of the church has been de- 
stroyed. Then, again, Mat. xxviii. 19, 20, where the Saviour 
said : " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them 
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost : Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
have commanded you : and, lo, I am with you alway, even 
unto the end of the world." This is in connection with bap- 
tism. There is no baptism, I suppose, according to the gen- 
tleman's doctrine, disconnected with the kingdom of God — 
and this baptism must be perpetuated unto the end of the 
world, until the last Jesus is with his people. I ask him to 
set aside, if his doctrine is true* this plain and emphatic pas- 
sage. 

Luke i. 33 : " He shall reign over the house of Jacob for- 
ever ; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." It shall 
stand forever. My friend's doctrine says that it has had an end ! 
Here, then, is a direct contradiction between Dr. Lucas and 
the angel in reference to this matter — who declared, that "of 



Elder (Ray's Opening Address. 269 

HIS KINGDOM THERE SHALL BE NO END." Are We to put any 

confidence in God's word? Is there any certainty in inter- 
pretation ? Are we to believe anything about it ? And shall 
we explain away, and contradict, and dissect, and cut God's 
word into a thousand pieces, in order to establish a theory ? 
Let theories go to the moles and bats. 

Let us go to God's word and there we have this statement, 
Heb. xii. 28 : " Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which can 
not be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God 
acceptably with reverence and godly fear." He is talking 
about the time when the earthly things were shaking ; and 
there is to be a time, he says, when the heavens are also to be 
shaken, but we have received a kingdom that can not be sliaken. 
I believe that the language is a little stronger in the original 
than " can not be moved." Let us serve God with reverence 
and godly fear. 

Here is another argument, drawn from 1st Cor. xi. 26 : 
" For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, you do 
show the Lord's death till he come." As the Lord's Supper 
is a church ordinance, only to be observed in church capacity, 
and it is to be observed till Christ comes the second time, 
therefore the church is to stand until he comes. There is no 
doubt about it. Here, then, are those arguments, eight in 
number, directly from God's precious word. I could as soon 
believe, dear friends, that the throne of God would topple 
from the heavens, or that the Saviour would fail to be the Son 
of God, as to believe that his word would fail. The heavens 
may pass away, and the elements may be consumed with fer- 
vent heat, yet God's word will stand, shall stand — stand for- 
ever. I have overwhelmed the gentleman, it seems to me, 
with the testimony of his own brethren. The succession 
stands : Mr. Campbell said so ; Mr. Lard said so ; Mr. 
Franklin said so ; Mr. Lipscomb said so ; and Tolbert Fan- 
ning said the same. All of the brightest lights his church 



270 (Baptist Church Claims. 

ever owned, all stand up and say, that the church has stood the 
conflicts of 1800 years, and it stands now, and will stand until 
Christ shall come. And shaH the Dr. stand up here, in order 
to make way for his schemes, and do away with the precious 
word of the living God ? 

And here I draw a conclusion. I state, dear brethren, that 
those churches that trace their history through the Papal suc- 
cession, from the Church of Rome, can not be that kingdom 
of God. It is impossible. It is known, and I say it in kind- 
ness, that all the branches of the Pedobaptist family have de- 
scended, either directly or remotely, from the Church of 
Rome. The reformers of the sixteenth century came out of the 
Church of Rome. Calvin was a member of the Catholic 
Church. Luther was a monk in the Catholic Church. 
Henry VIII. wrote a book in defense of the Catholic Church, 
and was styled the "Defender of the Faith." And so we 
find all these reformers, Melancthon, Zwingli, and others, all 
of them come directly out of the Catholic Church. Their 
reformation was a reformation, it is true, out of the Romish 
Church, and these Protestant churches have been branches 
which came out from them, coming down to the present time. 

But, I state, that true succession belongs to that people, as 
Sir Isaac Newton has said, who have never symbolized with the 
Church of Rome ; and, brethren, if one church, and there is no 
doubt about that, has that succession, it falls to the Baptists by 
inheritance. If every word of uninspired history was blotted out, 
if every line had been entirely destroyed, burned with the mar- 
tyrs of the church, still it falls to the Baptists. Why ? Be- 
cause we are the onf/y people outside of Rome that has any succes- 
sion, that makes any claim to succession. I say, others only 
make that claim through the Church of Rome, and that being 
so, it falls to us, I remark again, by inheritance. No man 
has ever yet been able, and you may go to the most learned 
men of all that ever searched history, to tell where the Bap- 



Elder (Ray's Opening Address. 271 

tists originated, unless they go back to the time of Christ. 
One says they originated with "John Menno," or Simon 
Menno. I asked a Romish priest, not long ago, in conversa- 
tion. He did not know that I was a Baptist. He asked me 
several questions, and finally I asked him some. He could 
tell who founded the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Epis- 
copal Church, the Lutherans, and so on. Said I to him, 
" Who set up the Baptist Church ?" He hung his head in 
solemn silence for some time, and then said he, " I really do 
not know." And, dear brethren, I will state, that historians 
have no difficulty in locating the "rise" of every denomina- 
tion, of every church on the earth, except the Baptists. We 
can go back and tell where the Church of Rome started ; we 
can go back and tell where the British Church started ; but, 
unless we go to Jesus Christ as the founder of what is called 
the "Baptist Church," that man does not live that has been 
able to point to any man as the founder and head of that 
church. I hope the gentleman will make a note of that, and 
tell me, if the Baptist Church was not founded by Jesus 
Christ, who set it up ? where ? and when? and in what coun- 
try, what age, and in what time was it set up? I ask him to 
make a minute of it. He forgets these questions ! I am ready 
to answer all questions pertinent to this question. When he 
asks me a fair question, I will try and answer it the best I can. 
Another point I w 7 ill introduce. If the Baptists fail to give 
a correct account of their own origin, they are the only church 
outside of Rome which is too ignorant or too dishonest to tell 
who is their founder. I go to the Methodists, and they will 
point to John Wesley as the founder of their church. I go to the 
gentleman's church, and his historians point to their leader, 
Mr. Campbell, as their founder ; and so of other churches, each 
of which has some distinguished leader from whom they origin- 
ated. But I go to the Baptists, and ask the Baptist histo- 
rians, "who was your founder? where did this church origin- 



272 (Baptist Church Claims. 

ate?" and they will point to the Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ as the fountain head. 

In this connection I would like to read that passage that my 
friend commenced reading by mistake the other night, the 
very one he ought to have read, but it choked him so badly 
that he failed to be distinctly understood, and finally said 
somebody had turned up the pages, perhaps. Now, I will try 
and read it a little more distinctly, p. 796, Keligious Encyclo- 
pedia: "We have now seen that the Baptists, who w r ere for- 
merly called Anabaptists, and, in latter times, Mennonites, 
were the original Waldenses ; and who have long, in the his- 
tory of the church, received the honor of that origin. On 
this account, the Baptists may be considered as the only 
Christian community which has stood since the days of the 
apostles, and as a Christian society, which has preserved pure 
the doctrines of the gospel through all ages. The perfectly 
correct external and internal economy of the Baptist denomi- 
nation, tends to confirm the truth, disputed by the Eomish 
church, that the Reformation brought about in the sixteenth 
century, was in the highest degree necessary ; and, at the same 
time, goes to refute the erroneous notion of the Catholics, 
that their communion is the most ancient." Here, then, we 
have the testimony of eminent men who have had access to 
the archives and libraries of old Europe, searching for years, 
and looking into the history of the church of the living God, 
standing up as candid men — learned Pedobaptists as they are — 
and saying that "we have now seen that the Baptists, formerly 
called Anabaptists, and in latter times Mennonites, were the original 
Waldenses, and long in the history of the church received the honor 
of that origin. On this account the Baptists may be considered as 
the only Christian community which has stood since the days of the 
apostles." Here is the testimony, and I ask the gentleman 
to examine it and show its fallacy. If these great men were 
mistaken in saying that the Baptists are older than the old 



Elder (Ray's Opening Address. 273 

Romish Church, let the gentleman demonstrate it. This he 
can not do, for before Rome mounted the throne of empire, be- 
fore the conversion of Constantine, and the union of church 
and state in 312, before Theodosius and Honorius, emperors 
of the East and the West, issued their murderous edicts against 
the hated Baptists, they, as the church of the living God, have 
> stood. No other church can put forth such a claim as this out- 
side of old Rome, and her's is the Papal succession, that of the 
Anti-christ, the false church, the church of Satan; but our's 
is that of the church of Christ. [Time Expired.] 



REPLY OF DR. LUCAS. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen : My friend has said much in his speech to which 
you have just listened, that demands no reply from me. A 
very large portion of the speech seems to have been made 
upon the principle that he was debating with the Koman 
Catholic Church, and that the claims of the Catholic Church 
were up, and that he was discussing the claims of that church. 
But we have a different subject for discussion. It is not the 
claims of the Catholic Church, whether they are the church 
of Christ or not ; but the question is in regard to the Baptist 
Church, with which my friend stands identified — that organi- 
zation known by his brethren as the Baptist Church. 

But I will state in the beginning, that if the gentleman's 
proposition be true, I want him to establish it beyond all con- 
troversy and doubt ; for, certainly, we all desire the truth. I 
am just as anxious, if the proposition affirmed by my friend 
be true, that he should make it so appear as any other being 
now in the presence of God. I want him to establish it as 
true, for, as I have stated before, the motto, " The truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth ^ is that which should in- 
terest our minds, that should govern and control our actions. 
The truth alone can do us good. By the truth we are made 
free, under the administration of the divine Saviour, and by 
the truth we shall be judged in the last and final day, when 
we shall receive our reward according to the standard of 
truth, and our actions in this life. Hence, we should enter 
upon this investigation realizing all these important facts. 



(Dr. Lucas' First (Reply. 275 

We should labor to ascertain what the truth is, and what that 
institution is presented as the church of God. 

The gentleman started out in his address by stating that 
the largest religious community on the continent, save the 
Catholic Church, is the Baptist Church. I suppose that he 
aimed to make the impression upon your minds that because 
it is the largest, and because it has quite a number of colleges, 
therefore it must be the church of Christ. I can not see 
what else the gentleman could have had in view in introduc- 
ing this statemant. However, he admits that the Catholic 
Church is larger than his church, and, consequently, if he de- 
sired to make an impression upon your minds by the great 
numbers that are in the Baptist Church, and the large num- 
ber of colleges which they have, and so on, that it must be 
the true church. If he desired to make this impression on 
your minds, the argument stands with just as great force in 
favor of the Catholic Church, because he admits that that 
church is larger than his. But this is a question that is not to 
be determined by majorities, it is not to be determined by 
numbers, but it is to be determined by the authority fur- 
nished in the word of God. The word of God must settle 
this question, or it will not be settled at all. But when we 
come to the real point, I doubt very much whether the gen- 
tleman does truly belong to the largest church upon the con- 
tinent. I say, I doubt very much the truth of this statement. 
I have no doubt at all but that he thinks so, but I have 
great doubts with regard to the correctness of his thoughts 
upon the subject ; and I wish to call your attention to a few 
little items here that I have gathered from the Religious En- 
cyclopedia, in regard to the Baptists. Now, he states that the 
church he represents is simply the Baptist, without a qualify- 
ing term, and with all those churches of Baptists that have 
added the name, or the qualifying phrase by which they are 
distinguished from other organizations. He says that these 



276 (Baptist Church Claims. 

are parties that have gone off, but his church is simply Bap- 
tist, without the qualifying phrase ; and this church, simply 
Baptist, without the qualifying or descriptive phrase, is the 
one that is embodied or embraced in his proposition. That is 
the inference that we have to draw from what he said. Well, 
in the Religious Encyclopedia, in the article entitled "Bap- 
tists," we find the following presented : First, the Particular 
Baptists. Here we have the Baptists with the qualifying 
term " particular." Well, he does not belong to that church, 
because his church has no qualifying phrase, but simply the 
" Baptist Church." The " Particular" Baptist Church, then, 
he does not belong to it, as this is one of the churches that he 
says has gone off, having this qualifying term "particular;" 
and I will venture, if his salvation depended upon it, he 
could not find the Baptist Church beyond that particular 
Baptist Church in history. Notwithstanding he has talked so 
much upon the subject of history, he can not, in his own au- 
thority there, in the Religious Encyclopedia, a Baptist work, 
from which he has read at length, he can not go back beyond 
the "Particular Baptists," if all heaven depended upon it. 

But the first presented is the "Particular Baptists." Well, 
he does not belong to that church. That is not the church, 
according to his statement. The second is the "General Bap- 
tists," Here we have the word "general," as descriptive of 
the kind of Baptists referred to. These are not the Particular 
Baptists, but the General Baptists. Now, he does not belong 
to these, for his church is simply the Baptist Church. He 
does not belong to these — these are a sect that he says have 
gone off. Well, if they went off anywhere, they went off 
from the Particular Baptists, not from his Baptist Church, for 
his Baptist Church has no qualifying phrase — it is the Baptist 
Church. Well, he does not belong to the General Baptists. 
These are not the Baptists as embraced in his proposition, and 
that he has pledged himself to prove to this audience to be 



(Dr. Lucas' First (Reply. 277 

the church of Christ. Well, General Baptists were divided 
into "the Old Connection" — the old connection of Baptists. 
Then we have here the old connection of Baptists, as qualify- 
ing the kind of Baptists referred to — the Old Connection of 
Baptists. Well, he does not belong to this church, for his 
church has no qualifying phrase. All those that have this 
qualifying phrase have gone off, he says, from the Baptist 
Church. Well, he does not belong to this church. Well, 
here we have three. The next is the "New Connection," the 
General Baptists, divided into the Old Connection and the 
New Connection. Well, he does not belong to this church, 
for his church has none of these qualifying phrases. He does 
not belong to the New Connection of Baptists ; he belongs 
to something else, and hence this organization is not the one 
as embraced and embodied in his proposition. The fifth or- 
ganization is the "Scotch Baptists." Well, he does not belong to 
that, that is not his church, that is not the church as embodied 
in his proposition, and consequently they are out of the great 
number to which he referred, and are not of the Baptist 
church, for all these with qualifying phrases are sectarian, and 
have gone out. But he belongs to the Baptist Church, not 
the Scotch Baptist church. He does not belong to that, that 
church is not the one embraced in his proposition, Well, 
H Regular Baptists. The sixth is the "Regular Baptists." 
I Well, here is the qualifying phrase "Regular," and according 
. to his rule it is a sectarian establishment. It is not his Baptist 
church. That is not the one embraced in his proposition. 
I Now, here we have the sixth Baptist Church out of his propo- 
sition. Well, the seventh — the " Seventh Day Baptists," and 
he says he does not belong to any of these, none of these con- 
I stitute his church, his is simply the Baptist Church: He does 
not belong, then, to any of these. Well, we have the eighth 
1 Baptist Church, the Free- Will Baptists. He spoke of these, 
* m does not belong to these. He told us that he did not be- 



278 (Baptist Church Claims. 

long to the Free- Will Baptists, because these have the quali- 
fying phrase to tell what kind of Baptists they are. They do 
not constitute the church embraced in his proposition. Well, 
the ninth church, "Missionary Baptists." He has gone back 
on what he said about these. He said at one time he belonged 
to the "Missionary Baptists," but now he says he belongs to 
the Baptist Church, not to any organization that has the qual- 
ifying phrase, for those are all sectarian, and have gone off 
from the true Baptists. Well, there is what some call the 
"Two Seed Baptists," known generally and familiarly in Ken- 
tucky as the Dudley Baptists, and they are called "Two Seed 
Baptists." Now here, again, we have a qualifying phrase, and 
he does not belong to these, these are not embraced in his 
proposition. Now here are ten Baptist churches that have a 
qualifying phrase by which they are described and distinguish- 
ed, the one from the others, and he belongs not to any one of 
these. Well, now add up the numbers, will you, that belong 
to all these Baptist churches, that he says he does not belong 
to, and that his proposition does not embrace, and then, I think, 
instead of his Baptist Church being the largest on the conti- 
nent, it will be a very small concern, his church will then be 
small indeed ! 

But now, if he says his people have a qualifying phrase by 
which their organization is distinguished from the others, and 
that his proposition does not embrace one of these organiza- 
tions so described in the Religious Encycloyedia, a Baptist 
work ; if he says his proposition embraces one of these or- 
ganizations, I want him to tell us which one of these various 
sects here under the head of Baptists, these various parties, 
called Baptists — under these different descriptive terms; 
I wish him to tell this audience which one of these 
churches he belongs to, and which one of these churches 
he embraces in his proposition, and that is known by 
his brethren as the Baptist Church. I want him to tell this 



(Dr. Lucas' First (Reply. 279 

audience which one it is, which one he embodies in his propo- 
sition, and that he affirms to possess the characteristics which 
entitle it to be called the visible church, or kingdom of Jesus 
Christ. This is especially important, from this fact, he pro- 
poses to identify the church by the chain of succession. And 
now he fixes the first link here — the church that he belongs 
to, known by his brethren, he says, as the Baptist Church — he 
fixes the first link of his succession here, and he goes back 
through the Mennonites to trace his chain of succession through 
the Mennonites. So with the different parties of the Men- 
nonites; then, he will have to show which one of the par- 
ties among them possessed the characteristics of this Baptist 
Church, in order to get the link. He will have to do this, and 
then he must say that the Anabaptists possess the character- 
istics of his particular branch of the Mennonites, if they are 
identical with the true church ; and when he comes to the 
Waldenses, then he must pick out his branch among the 
Waldenses, for they were divided ; he must select his branch 
here, and show that this particular branch among the Wal- 
denses possesses the characteristics of the Anabaptists, and 
that they possessed the characteristics of his particular branch 
of the Mennonites, and that they possessed the characteristics 
of his branch of the Baptist Church, showing the links step 
by step, and showing that all these possess the characteristics 
of the church of Christ. He must do this, or he fails, and 
his succession argument is not worth a single penny, unless he 
can do this. 
I hope, therefore, he will make these matters perfectly plain 

, to our minds. But, then, he quotes from Isaiah and Micah. 

, First, however, before we notice these prophets, we want to 
notice several other points presented in the gentleman's speech. 

I Stating, again, that many of these different Baptists — that 
they teach different doctrines, and that one organization of 
Baptists do not fraternize, or commune with the others ; that 



280 (Baptist Church Claims. 

is to say, the Particular Baptists do not admit the Eegular 
Baptists, or the General Baptists to their communion ; they, 
do not commune with the Generals, or the Eegulars ; they do 
not commune with the Old or New Connection, or with any of 
those other branches, or members of the Baptist Family. 
They do not commune with each other at the Lord's table.; 
they stand here, especially, aloof from each other. But the 
name, he says, does not found anything. Well, it is very well 
for him that it does not. He does not found anything upon 
the name, for just as certain as he were to found an argument 
in favor of his church upon the name, it would be like the 
house built upon the sand — it would be washed away. For it 
can have no foundation in the word of God. " Baptist," every 
one knows that the word "Baptist" is simply a Greek word 
anglicised, and the Bible Union, when they had to translate 
the words, " In these days came John, baptizing and preaching 
in the wiiderness ,, — the Bible Union Kevision Association, or 
the Baptist Revision Association — this association furnished 
the gentleman with a translation of the word of God. They 
have translated this passage. How? Why, "In those days 
came John, the immerser, preaching in the wilderness." Con- 
sequently, in order to have the English name for his church, 
he must have the " immerser" church. That is its name in 
English, " Immerser Church," not the Baptist Church. Well, 
my friend, when this same difficulty was presented before, 
he spoke of the same difficulty so far as we are concerned, 
that Christ meant "anointed," and, therefore, it would be the 
"anointed church" as to the followers of Jesus Christ in 
English. We told him then that we would accept that, for 
that is just exactly what we contend, for in English the 
church is the anointed church of Jesus Christ ; but he will not 
accept any English name for his church. It is an English 
church ; that is, it is controlled and governed by the English 
language, and we are to speak of it to those who speak this 



(Dr. Lucas' First (Reply. 281 

language, in the language that they have adopted, and by 
which they are governed ; where this language is the medium 
of communication from one to the other, it should be called 
the immerser church. But the gentleman is not willing to do 
that. He calls it the Baptist Church, but, while he makes no 
argument upon the name, he seems to think that the name is 
a matter of very little importance after all. Well, now, I 
would like to know how any organization can be identified in 
law, as an independent organization, without a name, for the 
name is one of the characteristics that must belong to the in- 
dividual or to the organization, in order to its identification. 
Every one must see that the name is important in order to the 
identification of the institution, or even of the individual, be- 
fore the law and among men. The name is an important 
characteristic ; it does not go to make up the whole character 
of the organization, but it is one of the characteristics of the 
identification by which that institution and personality may 
be established. 

But, the Baptists have the Bible succession. Well, I ask 
you the authority for that. "Well, my friend, Mr. Ray, 
said so." But he has not identified his church with the 
church presented in the word of God yet. He has not shown 
that it posseses the characteristics of the church of Jesus 
Christ, and until he does this, how can he establish the fact 
that the Baptists have the Bible succession? Even grant that 
the doctrine of church succession is true, he must show that 
his church is identical with the church of Christ before he 
can establish the affirmation made by him, that the Baptist 
Church has the Bible succession. This proposition we deny, 
and for the present, in regard to the question of succession, 
as the gentleman relies more upon this than any other, we 
will simply call your attention to the statement and testimony 
of his Brother Benedict again, one of the greatest Baptist his- 
torians that has ever lived, giving the history of the Baptist 



282 (Baptist Church Claims. 

Church. He testifies what we have read in your hearing be- 
fore. He says (p. 51, Succession of Churches) : "I shall 
not attempt to trace a continuous line of churches, as we can 
for a few centuries past in Europe and America. This is a 
kind of succession to which we have never laid claim." "To 
which we." I suppose he means by the " we" here, not only 
Benedict, but he means the Baptists with whom he stands 
identified. And now he states, take it either one way or the 
other, " This is a kind of succession to which we have never 
laid claim." Well, then, he must belong to a different class 
of Baptists than those to which my friend belongs. He cer- 
tainly must belong to another Baptist Church, and hence he is 
defining and identifying his church so that we can understand 
which of the Baptists he belongs to, and that his proposition 
embraces, and of which he affirms so largely and so strongly. 
Now, "this is a kind of succession to which we have never 
laid claim, and, of course, we make no effort to prove it, be- 
cause we have never laid claim to it, and we place no kind of 
reliance on this sort of testimony to establish the soundness 
of our faith, or the validity of our administration." This is 
what Mr. Benedict says : "But the more I study," says he, 
"the subject, the stronger are my convictions that if all the 
facts of the case could be disclosed' ' — as a matter of course, 
he did not have the facts ; he says, therefore, " if all the 
facts of the case could be disclosed, a very good succession 
could be made out." " If all the facts were disclosed" — but 
right here again is the difficulty — "if all the facts were dis- 
closed." Now, he admits that they are not disclosed, and, 
therefore, those things that he speaks of as facts he has no 
knowledge of at all, if they have not been disclosed. Well, 
I would like to know by what authority a man can even inti- 
mate the existence of that of which he has no knowledge. I 
assert that he has transcended the true bounds of propriety 
in the case when he acknowledges the facts are not disclosed, 



(Dr. Lucas' First (Reply. 283 

and, therefore, he knows them not. And if he knows them 
not, how does he know that they exist ? And if such facts 
do exist, as a matter of course, he has no knowledge upon this 
question at all. But, even take the case; he says, "if" As 
we have said before, that little word "if" is in the way. It 
is a very troublesome word. I simply remark, as I have 
stated before, if I had enough money I could start your roll- 
ing mill in a very short time. I could put it right through, 
if I had enough money. I could buy your town and your 
county, if I had enough money. But here is the trouble. I 
have not it ; I have not the money ; therefore, I can not do 
any of these things ; and Mr. Benedict, as he has not the 
facts by which to establish the succession, can not do it. 
Well, that is a pretty good reason, and he should not be 
blamed for not establishing the succession, when he has not 
the facts upon which to establish it, or to found it, or to 
cause it to rest. 

Now, we call your attention to the testimony of Robinson, 
and other eminent Baptists, introduced here by Benedict, and 
indorsed by him ; consequently, it is not only the testimony 
of Robinson, but is the testimony, by introduction and in- 
dorsement, of Benedict himself; and hence we have, in re- 
gard to what Robinson here says, the testimony of Benedict 
and Robinson jointly. Now, then, he says, on pages 34 and 
35, what is here affirmed ; well, we read, beginning at the 
34th page : " Protestants, by the most substantial argu- 
ments, have blasted the doctrine of Papal succession, and yet 
those very Protestants have undertaken to make proof of 
an unbroken series of persons of their sentiments following 
one another in due order from the apostles to themselves. 
The Papal succession is a catalogue of names of real and 
imaginary men, christians and atheists, blasphemers and 
saints. The Lutheran succession runs in the Papal channel 
till the Reformation, and then, in a small stream, changes its 



234 (Baptist Church Claims. 

course. The Calvinistic succession, which includes the pres- 
byterian, and all sects which originated from Geneva, is a zig- 
zag, and is made up of men of all beliefs and principles, and 
all communities, and, what is very surprising, of anabaptists 
— exactly such men as Calvin and his associates committed to 
the flames for heresy. The doctrine of uninterrupted suc- 
cession is necessary only to such churches as regulate their 
faith and practice by tradition, and for their use it was first 
invented." 

Now, he says, that the doctrine of uninterrupted succession 
is necessary only to such churches as regulate their faith and 
practice by tradition, and for their use it was first invented. 
We have read you passages similar from the " Encyclopedia 
of Religious Knowledge" — a Baptist authority — where the 
position is taken that there is but little, or nothing known of 
the history of the church for several hundred years, while, on 
the other hand, the history of the Anti-christ is very clear 
and full. 

Now, with regard to succession, the Roman Catholic 
Church, upon this subject, I w T ill venture to say, can make 
out at least as good a claim and as clear a succession as my 
worthy friend, and, I will say, much clearer ; but, then, the 
gentleman says, none but the Baptist Church and the Boman 
Church claim a succession unbroken. Well, he forgot at the 
time, as a matter of course, the Greek Church. The Greek 
Church claim that they have an unbroken succession, and 
claim that they are older than the Catholic Church. You have 
read the history of the church ; you go back to the third and 
fourth centuries, when they were having their contentions 
between the bishops — or even before that time — the Bishop 
of Antioch, and the Bishop ef Borne, and the Bishop of Con- 
stantinople, and, finally, the co-operation of the Bishops of 
Antioch and Kome against the Bishop of Constantinople, 
when the Bishop of Constantinople separated from the Roman 



(Dr. Lucas' First (Reply. 285 

Church, and the Greek Church brought into existence ; from 
that time the Latin and the Greek churches have existed as 
independent churches, both claiming an unbroken succession 
back to the days of the apostles. And even the Episcopal 
Church claim a succession independent of these others. They 
claim that they can trace a succession to the days of the apos- 
tles. But my worthy friend has called our attention to sev- 
eral passages of Scripture, to passages that had been up, 
claiming our attention even before this, and he says, that he 
wants me to notice every single passage that he introduces. 
Now, suppose he introduces three affirming the same thing, 
and if I notice one of them and show that that passage does 
not teach what he makes it teach, is it necessary for me to 
notice all the three, when they affirm the same thing? If I show 
that one of the class does not teach what he says it teaches, 
then I have shown that they all three do not teach what he 
says they teaeh, as they all affirm the same thing. 

But, with regard to the prophecy of Daniel ii. 44 : "In the 
days of these kings" — the Roman Csesars — "in the days of 
these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which 
shall never be destroyed : and it shall have no end." An 
argument is based upon the declaration that it shall have no 
end, that it shall not be destroyed. Well, now, I believe this 
passage as firmly as my friend, just as firmly as does he, but, 
at the same time, I believe that the church, the kingdom of 
Jesus Christ, the visible church and kingdom, is the church 
and kingdom embodied in our proposition : that the church 
or kingdom visible may be overturned and prevailed against, 
so that its history may be lost, just as Baptist authorities testify 
to be the case for several hundred years. Though it may be 
overcome and subdued for centuries, that is not the end of the 
kingdom — the kingdom is not finally overcome and destroyed 
— it will be resuscitated, it will be revived, and shall appear in 
the end glorious and powerful. I believe, this, but, then, again, 



286 (Baptist Church Claims. 

I say that this overcoming, or prevailing, does not involve 
the idea of the end — of the final destruction of the kingdom 
of Jesus Christ. Now, then, I give you an illustration : 
I say that a man dies, death overcomes him, and he is carried 
down into the dark empire of the tomb. Is that the end of 
that man ? Death has triumphed over him, death has pre- 
vailed against him, and has carried him down into the grave. 
But my friend will not say that is the end of the man, and so 
we say that the gates of Hades may so prevail against the 
church that its visibly organized form can not be affirmed as 
existing, and yet it will not be the end of that institution any 
more than death is the end of man ; and no one but he 
who adopts the language of Voltaire, that "death is an eternal 
sleep," affirms that this is the end of man, and so we meet all 
these passages. We affirm the same thing as regards the 
kingdom of Christ. But he notices Timothy again, iii. 
15 j where he speaks of the church as " the house of God, the 
pillar and ground of the truth." Now, when Paul speaks of 
the church here, or the house of God, he speaks of it as truly 
existing, as being actually then established by the authority 
of Jesus Christ. 

But, my friend has quoted in connection with this passage 
again, Isaiah and Micah, and surely there is no point in the 
reference to these prophecies, in connection with the language 
of Paul, unless they refer to the same church and the same 
house that Paul affirmed as then having an actual existence ; 
and yet, in the face of all this, he turns round and tells us 
that these prophecies do not refer to the church as now exist- 
ing, or as having existed from the time of its establishment 
by the authority of Jesus Christ, but it refers to the final con- 
summation and glorification of the church, and of all things 
connected with the church. But, then, he quotes Mat. xvi. 
18 : "Upon this rock I will build my church ; and the gates 
of hell shall not prevail against it." Now, there is a differ* 



(Dr. Lucas' First (Reply. 287 

ence between my friend and myself, upon this passage, with 
regard to the antecedent of the pronoun "it." Here is the 
difficulty. He says, "church;" I say, "rock." There is a 
difference between my friend and myself. But whatever is 
here affirmed, it is said that the gates of Hades, the unseen 
world, or the gates of death, as some express it, that they 
shall not prevail against it. Well, now, we say that "it" can 
not refer to church, as you can not have the church without 
its members, and it is affirmed that the saints shall be pre- 
vailed against, as is affirmed in Daniel, chapter 7th, and as 
is affirmed in the book of Eevelations, chapter 13th. It is 
said " The beast overcome the saints of God, that they made 
war against them and overcome them." This is affirmed both 
in Revelations and in the prophecy of Daniel, but my friend 
says individual saints, that with regard to individual saints 
this was true. Well, the gentleman has simply said a little 
more than the Scriptures affirm on the subject. They say 
"prevailed against the saints," "overcome the saints." It does 
not say " individual saints," or "particular saints," but says, 
" overcome the saints ;" "prevailed against the saints." These are 
the declarations, and we say that the antecedent of the pro- 
noun here must be determined by other passages of Scripture, 
and as these passages speak of the saints being overcome and 
prevailed against, whatever is presented here as the antecedent 
of the pronoun, it is affirmed that against it the gates of hell, 
or Hades, shall not prevail. You can not have the church 
without the saints, or its members. The antecedent of the 
pronoun must, then, refer to " rock" and not to church ; and, 
we state further, that, grammatically, "it" may refer either to 
the one or the other. So far as the grammar of the passage 
is concerned, "it" may have for its antecedent either 
"church" or "rock" — either one or the other; but, as be- 
fore stated, the antecedent must be determined by other Scrip- 
tures, and we have introduced these Scriptures to show you 



288 (Baptist Church Claims. 

that it must refer to " rock ; " as the rock is that against which 
the gates of death have never prevailed — the rock Christ. 
The gates of hell have not prevailed against this foundation 
— this rock upon which the church is built and made to rest. 
We have noticed these passages presented by my friend, and 
w r e have shown that the idea as presented in them is not at all 
inconsistent with the truth as presented by us, and that while 
it is affirmed that the kingdom established shall not have an 
end — it shall not be destroyed, yet it may be prevailed 
against — it may be overcome ; just as his Baptist authorities, 
with regard to the church, have affirmed : may be prevailed 
against, so far as to have no visible existence for hundreds of 
years. Yet that is not the end of the kingdom, or its destruc- 
tion, any more than the death of a man, death prevailing 
against a man and triumphing over him, is the end of the man. 

On his succession argument, we have referred you to his 
own Baptist authorities, and to what he said with regard to 
the Baptist Church, and we do hope that as his church pos- 
sesses no qualifying, or descriptive phrase, and these others 
do — we do hope that he will give the characteristics of his 
church in such a way that we may know what church is em- 
braced in his proposition. 

Having noticed these things, we desire to call your attention 
to some arguments that we offer against the truth of the gen- 
tleman's proposition. The first argument we offer against the 
truth of the gentleman's proposition is this : He has affirmed 
that his church was established in • the days of John the 
the Baptist. Whatever that church is that he calls the Baptist 
Church, he has asserted that it was established in the days of 
John the Baptist. Well, we state that it can not be the church 
of Christ from the very fact that the date of its beginning is 
wrong, is opposed to the teaching of the word of God, and is 
not that presented and revealed in the inspired Scriptures of 
God. We called your attention to this point in the discussion 



(Dr. Lucas' First ( keply. 289 

of the former proposition, and much of the matter introduced 
then will necessarily come before your minds again in the dis- 
cussion of this proposition. We called your attention to 
the Scriptures, and showed that they must exclude forever 
the idea that the church and kingdom of Jesus Christ was 
established in the days of John the Baptist, or was established 
even before the death of the Son of God. Now, one of the 
Scriptures to which we invited your attention is found in the 
Acts of the Apostles in the first chapter, beginning with the 
6th verse. It is here stated : "When they therefore were 
come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at 
this time restore the kingdom of Israel V This was their con- 
ception of his kingdom. Up to this time they had no true* 
conception of his kingdom, and even thought he was to reign 
over a temporal kingdom in the world, and consequently they 
desired to ask of him the privilege, some of them, of sitting 
on his right hand and on his left, when he should rule and 
feign in his kingdom here. "And he said unto them, it is not 
for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father 
hath put in his own power, but ye shall receive power after 
that the Holy Spirit is come upon you, and ye shall be wit- 
nesses unto me both in Jerusalem and in all Judsea, and in 
Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And 
when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was 
taken up ; and a cloud received him out of their sight." Now, 
here Jesus speaks of the kingdom as not having yet been es- 
tablished, just a few moments before he ascended to the Father, 
and this was at least forty days after his resurrection, and as 
the kingdom was not established until forty days after the resur- 
rection of the Son of God, up to the time of his ascension to the 
Father, the theory that it was established during the personal 
ministry of the Saviour or in the days of John the Baptist, is 
a false theory, and opposed to the word of God. This being 
true with regard to the gentleman's church, it is wrong in its 



290 (Baptist Church Claims. 

commencement, and therefore can not be the church of Christ. 
But in connection with this passage we call your attention to 
a passage found in Luke xix., beginning with the 11th verse, 
where we have these words : "And as they heard these things 
he added and spake a parable because he was nigh to Jerusa- 
lem and because they thought that the kingdom of God 
should immediately appear." Now, here the disciples 
thought that the kingdom of God would immediately appear. 
It had not yet appeared, or otherwise his disciples would not 
have thought that the kingdom of God would immediately 
appear. Language can not be plainer than this, for these dis- 
ciples, if the kingdom of God then existed, the disciples 
"were in it, and if they were in it, they knew it. And 
if they were in it, and did not know it, there could 
be no advantage or enjoyment derived from being in 
it, for they knew it not. So then, if they were in it, 
they knew it, and from the very fact that they thought 
the kingdom of God would immediately appear, at this time 
it is clear that it did not exist, that it had not yet been estab- 
lished. But with the quotation further : they thought that 
the kingdom of God would immediately appear, and he said, 
therefore, "A certain nobleman went into a far country to re- 
ceive for himself a kingdom, and to return." Well, the only 
answer that my friend has been able to give to the argument 
founded upon this parable is, that the coming of the nobleman 
is at the close of time, while he enters not into the argument 
at all. The nobleman here represents Jesus, the king and 
founder of this kingdom, presented as the kingdom of Christ, 
the kingdom of which we speak, then we say that Jesus is 
represented by the nobleman as the king, and/iewmt to receive 
a kingdom. The question is not in regard to coming, but in 
regard to his going to receive the kingdom. He was to receive 
a kingdom, that kingdom was not received before he did go, 
and if that kingdom was not received before he did go, it was 



(Dr. Lucas' First (Reply. 291 

not established before he went away ; and if not established 
before he went away, it was not established during the per- 
sonal ministry of Jesus here in the world, or in the days of 
John the Baptist. Hence, we say, so far as my friend's argu- 
ment is concerned in regard to the beginning of his church, it 
is not the one presented as the church or kingdom of Jesus 
Ghrist in the word of God. Secondly, we state that the 
name is wrong ; they, the Baptists, have not the Scripture 
name, and this the gentleman admits so far as the name of his 
church is concerned. He says, God gave the name to John as 
the Harbinger of the church, but not to the church as a 
church name. [Time Expired.] 



ELDER RAY'S SECOND ADDRESS. 



Me. President, Brethren, Moderators, and Respected 
Congregation : It seems to me my worthy friend is very un- 
fortunate in entering this discussion, for he denies a propo- 
sition that he confesses he does not understand. He does not 
know, for the life of him, what church I belong to. Then, it 
may turn out that I belong to the very same church that he 
does! If he does not know, I am sorry for him. When I 
denied his proposition, I knew what I was doing. Neither did 
I try to get off on what I would denominate a quibble, be- 
cause his brethren call themselves "Disciples" in Virginia, 
and " Christians " here. I might ask, " now which church do 
you belong to ?" " Here you are called Christians; in some 
places Reformers, in others Disciples" Now, here are three or 
four churches! "Some hold one view, and some another; 
which do you belong to ?" But, I did not kick up so much 
dust out of a diversity of names. I did not attempt to quib- 
ble. I sought* to meet the issue squarely. The gentleman 
knows there is a denomination calling themselves the " Chris- 
tian Society," or Christian Church ; others who claim to be the 
" church of God," but, are different denominations. This he 
ought to know. Did I affirm that he belonged to this so- 
ciety, or that society ? Did I try to make the impression that 
I could not tell whether the Dr. belonged to this, that, or the 
other church ? If the gentleman has not sufficient intelligence 
to enable him to understand what church I belong to, I 
frankly tell him I don't propose to give it to him. Under- 
stand me, however, upon this subject, I am ready to give him 



Elder (Ray's Second Address. 293 

all information, if he will receive it, and advance with the ex- 
amination of the characteristics. 

But, again, in regard to the denomination. I spoke simply 
of the Baptists of America. I have here the Year Book, con- 
taining the statistics for 1873. There we find that the Bap- 
tists — leaving out the little sects and a few Seventh Day Bap- 
tists and Dunkers, and these outside parties, that you call 
Free Will Baptists — that they number : churches, 19,720 ; 
ministers, 11,893 ; membership, 1,585,232. The Methodist 
denomination comes next in the list, as given in the statistical 
account. The number given here is 1,421,323, including 
123,100 in full connection, and 190,315 on probation. Count- 
ing those in full membership, the Baptists amount almost to 
half a million more than even our Methodist friends. I do 
not base an argument on this, but only allude to it because the 
gentleman seems to be so badly confused as to who the Bap- 
tists are ; I want to show him that there are in the Baptist 
Church, in America, about six times as many members as in 
his own church. And yet, he can not tell who they are ! I 
said, in history, when we come to the books of denominations, 
we are simply put down as Baptists. I did not say that we 
were never called by anything else. Sometimes people call 
us Particular Baptists ; sometimes General Baptists, because 
we believe, the most of us, in the general atonement. Some- 
times we are called Regular Baptists ; sometimes we are called 
Missionary Baptists, because we preach the gospel everywhere, 
and yet we are the same people, associated together in the 
Lord's work and called Baptists. With the exception of a 
few Antinomian brethren, who have gone out from us, the 
great mass of the Baptists of America stand associated to- 
gether. If the gentleman does not know it, I will simply say 
he ought to have informed himself before he got himself into 
such a position as he is now in ; or, at least, he ought to re- 
ceive the information that we give him as we advance. 



294 (Baptist Church Claims. 

But the name "immerser church." According to his argu- 
ment, if it is the immerser church it is not the right church, 
because it has not the right name ! It is of no consequence to 
him that a half million of our brethren have been martyrs to 
the truth we advocate here to-night ? We have never changed 
the name. When we go back to the first administrator of the 
sacred ordinance of baptism, he was called the Baptist. But, 
suppose we are called the immerser church, would that make it 
a different church ? According to the gentleman's argument a 
different name makes it a different church ! Will he please 
tell me what the name should be ? First, where, in what chap- 
ter of the Bible, is a name given which is to be used to the 
exclusion of all others ? I want him to tell me, because he 
can not find Christian Church named in the Bible to save his 
life, even if it was to keep him from purgatory. It is strange 
that he should make such a hurrah about a name, when he 
can not find the name of his own church in the Bible. But, 
he says, " therefore we are the true church, because we have 
the right name." Well, according to your own argument we 
are the true church, because we are called Christians. There 
never has been a time when we were not called Christians, 
since the days when the people first began to follow Christ. 
I do not claim it was by divine authority. 

The gentleman seemed to be almost converted to the doc- 
trine of church succession. He says he does not contend that 
the kingdom has an end. It does last all the time ; but the 
kingdom — well, it died! certainly died!! but when a man 
dies, that is not the end of him, because his soul lives ! ! ! 
Well, I wish the Doctor, as he is progressing on the succes- 
sion matter, I want him to tell me when the church of the 
living God died ? whether it was buried ? did anybody preach 
its funeral sermon ? Then I wish him to tell me who resur- 
rected it from the dead ? or whether it has had a resurrection. 
I wish to know the man that had power to breathe life into the 



Elder (Ray's Second Address. 295 

dead carcass of that church that was dead, buried, and rotten 
in the grave. But, the Dr. says, "it did not have an end." 
It only died ; and for long and dreary centuries there was no 
church upon the earth. Well, where was it then ? The gen- 
tleman's position contradicts, it seems to me, directly and pal- 
pably the eternal word of God, which declares He shall reign 
over the house of Jacob forever. That stone that was cut 
from the mountain without hands did not start upon the earth 
and then stop, but that stone that symbolized the kingdom 
rolled on and rolled on, until it became a great mountain and 
filled the whole earth. That prophecy of Micah and Isaiah 
has reference to the triumph of the kingdom, when it shall be 
exalted above the mountains. I want the gentlemen to tell 
me exactly about when the kingdom died, and when it was 
resurrected. Do not forget that. It is true, he did not say 
it was exactly dead, but, then, it was dead according to his 
illustration. 

But, the Dr. says, the church, or kingdom, was prevailed 
against — the saints were overcome. Well, the Bible does not 
say that the kingdom was prevailed against. The little horn 
made war against the saints, and prevailed against them for 
a certain time. I suppose, according to the gentleman's argu- 
ment, since that time there can not be any saints, as they are 
out of the kingdom of God. 

In Dan. vii. 27, it is said that the time should come when 
the people of the saints should possess the kingdom of the 
most High, " whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom." 
Then it did not come to an end. 

But in regard to the succession and the authorities the gen- 
tleman has read. These authorities do not testify in regard 
to the gentleman's position, for Benedict simply said that if 
all the facts could be disclosed a very good succession could be made 
out. He affirmed the existence of the facts. As an historian 
he said the facts did exist, and he had developed some of 



296 (Baptist Church Claims. 

them himself; but he was not proving succession. He did 
not think it necessary, nor do any of the Baptists think it 
necessary in order to establish their claim, to prove succession 
from an uninspired historic standpoint. But we do believe 
that the succession must exist. And when we find an organ- 
ization set up by a man — an uninspired man — of recent date, 
we know that is not the original, or church of Christ, As I 
have remarked before, however, that succession must exist of 
necessity. And now in regard to his argument as to the Bap- 
tist commencement : Suppose that he is right — that the king- 
dom was set up on the day of Pentecost, and our theory, as 
he says, is wrong; the succession still exists, whether we trace 
it or not. Then, the fact that we were mistaken a year or 
two in regard to the precise time of the setting up of the king- 
dom, if it were granted, would not in the least militate against 
our church claims, to be the church of the living God. Sup- 
pose that I should say that Darwin was not a man, because 
he had introduced a wrong theory about the origin of man ! 
That would be about as good an argument as the getleman's. 
Holding a theory that man has been developed and originated, 
perhaps, from the lowest order of animal life, and yet in time 
comes up to a man ; therefore, Darwin is not a man ! because 
he has a false theory of the origin of man. No, sir. His ar- 
gument is out again, entirely. And then I wish him to notice 
the Scriptures, that say : " the law and the prophets were 
until John. Since that time the kingdom of God is preached 
and every man presseth into it." " From the days of John 
the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth vio- 
lence, and the violent taketh it by force." Then, again, " the 
Pharisees shut up the kingdom against men, and would not 
enter in themselves, nor suffer those w T ho were entering to go 
in." But, as I have answered him, now I will proceed. 

I read you now from Mr. Campbell, as a historian on succes- 
sion, in his Purcell debate, p. 77 : " Every sect and individ- 



Elder (Ray's Second Address. 297 

ual, as I said before, is passive in receiving a name. Sec- 
tarian names are generally given in the way of reproach ; 
thus, the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch, 
most probably in derision ; yet it was a very proper name. 
Call us what you please, however, it does not change nature 
or race. The disciples of Christ are the same race, call them 
Christians, Nazarenes, Galileans, Novatians, Donatists, Paul- 
icians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Protestants, or what you 
please. A variety of designations affects not the fact which 
we allege ; we can find an unbroken series of Protestants — a 
regular succession of those who protested against the corrup- 
tions of the Roman Church, and endeavored to hold fast the 
faith once delivered to the saints, from the first schism in the 
year 250 A. D. to the present day ; and you may apply to 
them what description or designation you please." So Mr. 
Campbell, of Bethany, Virginia, the founder of the gentle- 
man's church, testifies that there is an unbroken succession 
extending down through the ancient Waldenses, designated by a 
variety of names and nicknames, until the Reformation of the 
sixteenth century. This shows that the gentleman is wrong 
in declaring that the church has come to an end. 

But I want to give you another testimony on the subject, 
as we want to strengthen this line and show, by undisputed 
testimony, the truth of our position, so that it will be admitted 
' by any one capable of investigating the historic points. Car- 
dinal Hosius, one of the most learned and eminent Catholic 
writers in his day, president of the Council of Trent, says : 
' (I read now from the " Baptist Martyrs," p. 19, there is a 
! quotation made by Mr. Brown, the editor of the Religious 
Encyclopedia) : " If you behold their cheerfulness in suffering 
' persecution, the Anabaptists run before all the heretics. If 
you have regard to number, it is likely that in multitude, they 
I would swarm above all others, if they were not grievously plagued 
• and cut off with the knife of persecution. If you have an eye to 



298 (Baptist Church Claims. 

the outward appearance of godliness, both the Lutherans and 
Zwinglians must needs grant that they far pass them. If you 
will be moved by the boasting of the word of God, these be no 
less bold than Calvin to preach ; and their doctrine must stand 
aloft — above all the glory of the world — must stand invincible 
above all power, because it is not their word, but the word oi 
the living God." Then, Mr. Brown adds : " Those who think 
to do battle against the Baptists, as a modern, reactionary, 
ephemeral sect, will find themselves greatly mistaken." Those 
who thus suppose are mistaken. The Baptists are not a 
modern sect, but stand out as the church of the living God. 
Again, Mr. Brown has said — (the very same one that the gen- 
tleman referred to as admitting, as he supposed, his position, 
which is not correct) — p. 17 Baptist Martyrs : " The Baptists 
have no difficulty whatever in tracing up their principles and 
their churches to the apostolic age. It has been often said 
by our enemies, that Ave originated in the German city of 
Munster, in 1534. Lamentable must be the weakness or 
ignorance of such an assertion, come from whom it may. It 
w 7 ere easy to cite eminent Pedobaptist historians to refute this 
calumny." This is the testimony of Mr. Brown, one of the 
ablest men that ever lived on this continent. Bear in mind, 
these facts I read are not Baptist testimony, but the testimony 
of learned Pedobaptists. I wish to call your attention to other 
authorities now. admitting the same thing in regard to the 
Baptist Church, by men who knew a little more about the 
Baptist history than my worthy friend. Mr. Campbell said 
in the Campbell and Maccalla debate, p. 378: "From the 
apostolic age to the present time, the sentiments of Baptists, 
and their practice of baptism, have had a continued chain of 
advocates, and public monuments of their existence in every 
century can be produced." He did not come up and say "we 
could not tell anything about the Baptists ; we don't know 
who they are, or what they are." In every century along 



Elder (Ray's Second Address. 299 

down the dreary pathway of time, the sentiments and practices 
of the Baptists have a continued chain, says Mr. Campbell — 
and I believe, while I am quoting the testimony of Mr. Camp- 
bell, I will give another. This was while he was associated 
with the Baptists he said this, but he said it as a historian. 
But, after he set up his church, operating for himself some- 
times, the question came up, where was the church before 
your time? where was the kingdom? and he was pressed 
,. sorely as my friend has been pressed lately on this subject. 
That is the reason he would not answer these questions that 
stand against him unanswered, and w r ill stand to the end of 
\ time, unless he gets up and answers them before this discus- 
{ sion closes. Mr. Campbell, writing to Dr. Thomas, when Dr. 
: Thomas had commenced re-immersing some of his own Dis- 
ciples that had come to them from the Baptists — Millennial 
Harbinger, vol. 7, p. 57, 58 — says: "This [that there are 
, some w r orthy Baptists] exactly accords with the views of some 
of our brethren long since expressed — that as it was w 7 ith the 
I Jews, in the times of the Messiah and his apostles, so it is now 
\ with the Baptists. The nation, as such, continued to be the 
j kingdom of God, until they rejected the offered salvation ; so 
the present kingdom of God was found amongst- those who 
plead for faith, repentance, and baptism > as necessary to ad- 
[j mission into the kingdom of grace, until the present call upon 
them to reformation. Since the rejection of that call by them, 
as a people, or so far as any of them have opposed this reforma- 
tion, they are not of the kingdom of God ; and especially such 
. as have been immersed by them, having heard before their 
! immersion the original gospel, are unworthy of the confidence 
in the brethren of the reformation." Mr. Campbell was a his- 
torian. He grappled with Mr. Purcell on history, and he 
debated with some of the most learned of the Pedobaptists ; 
jand he said that the kingdom of God (this is the substance of 
Jwhat he testified) the kingdom of Ood was with the Baptists till 



300 (Baptist Church Claims. 

He called them to reform; and then God took the kingdom 
away from the Baptists and gave it to the Disciples. But the 
prophecy of Daniel forbids the conclusion. He says, " it shall 
not be left to other people/' and if God gave it to them, the 
Baptists were the depositories of that true church. The king- 
dom of God was with them along the path of 1800 years, and 
I will ask, when almost rivers of blood have flowed from the 
martyrs belonging to the true church— I will ask, is it reason- 
able to suppose that God has taken that kingdom away from 
them and given it to Mr. Campbell's Disciples, Believe it 
who can, I do not believe any such statement. 

Here, again, is a statement I have from that learned man 
who prepared an analysis of the Bible, Mr. Hitchcock (page 
1117, from the article " Baptists") : " Baptists — Who hold 
that a personal profession of faith, and an immersion in water, 
are essential to baptism. They claim that they have existed 
as Christian communities from the days of the apostles, and 
have held pure the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel 
through all ages. 1 ' And here I wish to make this statement: 
Of all the authors of these books, such as Buck's Theolog- 
ical Dictionary, Burder's History of Religion, Milner, in re- 
gard to the religious denominations of the world, and others, 
while they fail not to tell who was the father and founder of 
the various denominations, when they come to the Baptists, 
whether friend or foe, no man ever dares put his finger upon 
the man, whether near or far back in history, and say, Here 
is the founder and head of the Baptist Church ! We will 
see, by and by, in tracing the history of the Baptists, that 
hated sect of olden time, that in the language of one of the 
historians their origin lay in the remote depths of antiquity- 
I have the testimony here of many church historians, all to 
the same effect, and you have heard the testimony of Bene- 
dict, that the succession exists. I read now from the Baptist 
Manual, p. 82 : " Our principles are as old as Christianity. 



Elder (Ray's Second Address. 301 

We acknowledge no founder but Christ. With enthusiasts in 
Germany, or in any age or country, we have no connection, 
and our forefathers never had. Enthusiasts may be desig- 
nated by the same name, but that proves nothing. Persons 
holding our distinctive principles — i. e., the baptism of be- 
lievers only — have appeared in all ages of the Christian era. 
From Christ to the end of the second century there w T ere no 
others ; at least, if there were any, their history is a blank."' 
I might quote passage after passage from the historians, of 
like effect ; but the gentleman has not met, as yet, the testi- 
mony of Christ and the prophets, that the kingdom was to 
have no end. His poor apology about the kingdom dying 
and being revived again is certainly very strange for one that 
believes in Gods word. He ought certainly to reform from 
such a position, and not take it any more. I want him to 
consider these passages again. You better, if possible, tell 
this people where that kingdom has been all the time. Where 
is the church of the living God ? Again I affirm, as certain 
as God's word is true, there is a succession of the true king- 
dom of Christ, a perpetuity of his church. Why ? Because 
God's word is pledged to it. And I have introduced the testi- 
mony of two of the most eminent and learned historians that 
ever lived on the continent of Europe, both Pedobaptists, in 
support of my position. I have introduced the testimony of 
Cardinal Hosius, who testifies to the remote origin of the 
Anabaptists, as he calls them, that suffered for the cause of 
! Christ ; and in another place he says 1200 years before his 
\ time they had suffered the most cruel sorts of punishment. 

Mr. Lucas — Where does he say that, that they suffered 
\ 1200 years ? 

Mr. Ray — I will read it in my proofs, as I advance. 

Mr. Lucas — I would like to have your authority. 

Mr. Ray — I expect to give the authority. 

Mr. Lucas — That's right : we want it. 



302 (Baptist Church Claims. 

Mr. Kay — I say, this is the testimony of Cardinal Hosius, 
that eminent and learned Catholic. And I wish to state an- 
other argument here, that the Baptists claim no leader, no 
founder, no head, but the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 
[Time Expired.] 



DR. LUCAS' SECOND REPLY. 



• Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen : In regard to the authority which the gentle- 
man has quoted concerning the sufferings of the ancient Bap- 
tists, I do not think the gentleman will find it just exactly as 
he stated it, and that is the reason I asked him for it. I have 
read a little on that subject myself. 

He refers to Benedict again, and has quoted Orchard. I 
know just what Orchard says. I have him here, and Dun- 
can, and Jones, and all these authorities of the Baptist 
Church. I know just what they say. The gentleman, it 
would seem, would prove all his propositions by his Baptist 
authorities, occasionally introducing Mr. Campbell. Mr. 
Campbell was a Baptist when he made the statement which 
has been quoted, the first one he quoted from Campbell. The 
gentleman seems to hold on to this question of succession, and 
he seems to think it necessary, though he says it is not neces- 
sary, to establish succession, in order to make out his church 
as the visible church. Then, why does he not advance? Why 
does he take an hour and a half to establish a thing that is 
not necessary to identify his church? 

Then, suppose that we were to admit, for the sake of argu- 
ment, his doctrine of succession. He says it is not necessary 
to establish his church, to identify his church. Now, suppose 
we admit it all. Then what has he gained? Just for the 
sake of the argument we admit his question of succession. 
i But he has not gained a single point ; for he says it is' not 
1 necessary to establish the identity of his church. We do not 



304 (Baptist Church Claims. 

believe a word of it, but for the sake of the argument we 
will admit it, just to get him to advance in his argument, for 
he says it does not prove the identity of his church, even if it 
be true. 

But, then, we call your attention to the character of his 
authority, while the subject is up. What does Kobinson say, 
and Benedict indorse ? Says he: "The doctrine of uninter- 
rupted succession is necessary only to such churches as regu- 
late their faith and practices by tradition, and for their use it 
was invented." 

Now, this is what Eobinson says, and what Benedict in- 
dorses. He says here that the succession is not necessary, 
and my friend says he indorses Benedict, when he states what 
might be done if the facts were disclosed. Now, I wish to 
know if a man can know the facts, know whether they exist 
or not, if they have not been disclosed. Can a man know a 
thing as a fact, unless it has been disclosed ? Well, every- 
body says, no ! Well, then, Benedict does not know that the 
facts exist. It was simply an opinion that there were facts ; 
yet he does not know anything of them, because they have 
not been disclosed. It was his opinion, if they were disclosed, 
that there were facts, and then a very good succession could 
be made out ; yet, if it were made out, it is not necessary to 
the identification of this church, not necessary at all. But 
that little "if" is in the way, and there is the great trouble ; 
and his Baptist Encyclopedia says, "For several hundred 
years" — as we have read time and again in your hearing upon 
this ^subject — " we have not a history of the church ; yet we 
have a full history of the Anti-christ ;" yet, on the other 
hand, we have not* a history of the church for several hundred 
years. He attempts to prove by Campbell that the kingdom 
was once given to the Baptists. " Now, then, I would like to 
have' a little Bible upon this question. These are questions 
that are to be determined by the Bible." I deny this state- ( 



(Dr. Lucas' Second (Reply. 305 

ment, and I deny Mr. Campbell's statement, if Mr. Campbell 
says what he reports him to say. I deny both of them ; for 
I deny that God ever did give to the Baptists the kingdom of 
His Son. That is the proposition I deny, and I ask authority 
from the word of God upon the question. Where is the au- 
thority ? We must go to the word of God. He must show 
from that book that the Baptist Church is the church of 
Jesus Christ, or he fails, But he seems to be very slow to go 
to the word of God to identify his church. He w T ould rather 
quote from Campbell, and from this one and that one, outside 
of the word of God. He can do a great deal better there 
than in the Scriptures, for the word of God says but very 
little about his church. 

But he says I am pretty nearly converted to Baptist succes- 
sion. A person would suppose that I have very strong faith 
in the Baptist succession, from the way I talk about it, would 
he not ? When I told you I did not believe a word of it, that 
there is no authority for it at all, but that the succession is 
; built upon tradition, and not upon the Word of God as we 
have affirmed time and again, and yet he says I talk as though 
I was pretty nearly converted to succession — to Baptist suc- 
cession. Well, if that is the idea I have impressed upon your 
minds, I will just let it remain. 

In regard to the name again. I said in English that his 
church would be the Immerser Church, in Greek that it would 
be the Baptist church, for Baptist was the Greek simply an- 
glicised. He said that Christ meant anointed, and, says he, 
it is a different name in English. I say it is simply the same 
name expressed in a different language, that is all, and I stated 
in English the name of his church would be the Immerser 
3hurch ; in the Greek it would be the Baptist, that is all ; 
3ut I say that his name, either in Greek or in English, is not 
? ound in the word of God — the name of his people. The name 
)f one man, John the Baptist, or John the Immerser, is found 



306 (Baptist Church Claims. 

in the Bible — the name of but one man, John, the harbinger 
of Jesus, that was to prepare a people for the Lord. Then 
he says in regard to the church : "Well, the Doctor, if he 
don't know what church I belong to, I won't tell him." Well, 
I guess not, I guess he will not, for I am beginning to think 
that the gentleman hardly knows himself which church he 
belongs to. I think it a difficult matter for him to determine 
this question himself. Now, suppose the gentleman knows, 
and that I know what church he belongs to? He is not dis- 
cussing this question for my benefit only, he is discussing this 
question for your benefit, and for all that shall read this dis- 
cussion, and it is hardly presumable that all will know when 
they read this book, unless he tells them, which Baptist Church 
he belongs to ; because they are just as certain to read that he 
belongs to the Baptist Church without the qualifying phrase, 
they are just as certain to read that, as they read this debate, 
that his Baptist Church has no qualifying phrase ; and they 
are just as certain to read of the ten Baptist churches that 
have a qualifying phrase that we have quoted from his own 
Baptist authority giving the different Baptist churches, and as 
he belongs to the Baptist Church that has no qualifying phrase, 
and according to his own statement he does not belong to any 
one of these ten, I should like to know to what church he 
belongs. I say this question is legitimate, and he ought to 
answer it, if he can ; but probably he does not know himself. 
He said there was no trouble about the church he belonged 
to, because he at the commencement, in defining the proposi- 
ion, said : "I will tell you to what church I belong to, I will tell 
you just precisely where I stand ;" but then he has not done it, 
and one of three things must be true, either that he does not 
know, or, secondly, that he is ashamed to tell ; or, thirdly, he is 
a very unaccommodating gentleman. One of these three things 
must be true ; I leave you to determine which one is true. Until 
the gentleman settles this question, one of these must be true. 



(Dr. Lucas' Second (Reply. 307 

But he comes to these prophecies, the prophecy of Daniel 
and the declaration found in Revelations, again. Now, I 
read from Daniel (vii. 21, 22), where it is positively 
asserted that the little horn made war with the saints 
and prevailed against them, and said there was a time 
when it prevailed, and there will be a time when it will not 
prevail. ' 'Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was 
given to the saints of the most High ; and the time came that 
the saints possessed the kingdom." But there was a time 
when they were prevailed against, and when they did not pos- 
sess the kingdom, the visible kingdom of God. We are talk- 
ing about the visible kingdom, as expressed in the proposition 
under discussion, and I state that the gentleman can not show 
an unbroken chain in the existence of the visible church or 
kingdom of God. There were people in Babylon that God 
recognized as his people, but in Babylon they did not consti- 
tute the visible church or kingdom of Jesus Christ, and I do 
not presume that the gentleman will affirm this to the au- 
dience that in Babylon they constituted the visible church 
and kingdom of Jesus Christ. I don't presume he will affirm 
this, I feel very certain he will not. Then there was a time 
we show when they were prevailed against, when for hundreds 
of years the visible church or kingdom of Jesus Christ could 
not be made out. We have no history of it for that length of 
time, according to his own Baptist authorities that we have 
read to you, and this is in strict accordance with the Scriptures 
read. We call your attention to the statements made in the 
13th chapter of Revelations, made by John while upon 
the Isle of Patmos : "And it was given unto him to make war 
with the saints, and to overcome them : and power was given 
him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations/' Now, then, 
they are said to be overcome, to be prevailed against, and con- 
sequently we said the argument founded by the gentleman on 
i the 18th verse and 16th chapter of Matthew was valueless, as it 



308 (Baptist Church Claims. 

could not be the church, as the saints were prevailed against 
and overcome. You could not have a visible church without 
the saints ; it must, therefore, refer to the rock. Now, he 
took care not to notice the parable of the nobleman going 
away to receive his kingdom. He took particular care not to 
notice this passage which we introduced upon the subject. 
And now he calls our attention again to a few authorities in 
order to show, I suppose, that these passages quoted by me 
are not true. I shall say that this must be the result of his 
effort until he shows that these passages are perfectly consist- 
ent, and are not at all opposed to each other, or his interpreta- 
tions of them. We have shown that the kingdom had not ap- 
peared, that Jesus went away to receive the kingdom, showing 
that he had not yet received it. We notice again, Matthew 
xi. 11, 12, one of the passages quoted by the gentleman, 
w T hich has been up several times, but the gentleman has again 
noticed it and called your, minds to it: "Verily I say unto 
you, Among them that are born of woman there hath not ris- 
en a greater than John the Baptist : notwithstanding he that 
is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Now, 
then, I submit this point upon this passage, that if the king- 
dom of heaven existed in the days of John, John was in it, 
and yet it is affirmed that there was not a greater born of 
woman — a greater than John the Baptist — and yet the least 
in the kingdom is greater than John, that is, the least in the 
kingdom is greater than the greatest in the kingdom. Now, 
these are the difficulties that come up before the gentleman in 
this portion of the word of God. And "From the days of 
John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth 
violence, and the violent take it by force ;" and the parallel 
passage reads : "that the law and the prophets were until John ; 
since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached." Well, 
the gentleman has admitted that the apostles were never called 
until after John was in prison, and the Saviour never gave to 



(Dr. Lucas' Second (Reply. 309 

the disciples the kingdom until he went away. That was forty 
days after the resurrection of Christ ; and yet with all these 
statements, he would now labor to make the impression upon 
your minds that the kingdom, since John, or from the very 
time that John appears, that from that very period the king- 
dom of God has been preached, has actually existed. And 
this is the point that we deny. We say it was preached 
at hand, as drawing near, but not preached as actually exist- 
ing ; and the gentleman has failed to show that it did actually 
exist. We say, therefore, his church is wrong, because it has 
a wrong beginning ; and having a wrong beginning, a different 
beginning from that of the church of Jesus Christ, it can not 
be the visible church, or kingdom of the Son of God. 

We call your attention to the second argument against the 
gentleman's church, that is, that their name is wrong ; they 
have the wrong name. There is but one person in the uni- 
verse of God referred to in the Scripture as Baptist at all, 
and that is John the Baptist, the harbinger of Jesus Christ, 
the only one ; and, therefore, we say his name is not the 
name. 

But we call your attention to a third fact — the third argu- 
ment against the gentleman's church. Now, then, I know 
that he will tell you when he gets a little further along — he has 
been more economizing of his material to-night than he was at 
Canton, for he is beginning at the other end, as he can talk long- 
er upon succession, probably, than anything else — he will tell 
you that he has the right foundation ; that his church has the 
Scriptural foundation, and yet the Mennonites are one of the 
links of his church. I say he is wrong, because he has not the 
true foundation. I will quote from Orchard to show the true 
foundation of his church, the Mennonites being identical, ac- 
cording to his own admission, with the Baptist Church. Or- 
chard (p. 367) says: "Other churches are founded on this 
principle, that practical piety is the essence of religion." Here, 



310 (Baptist Church Claims. 

then, according to the statement made by Orchard himself, 
that is the foundation. Well, I want to call your attention 
to the principles and practices of the Baptists by Way land, 
and with this statement that that church is founded upon this 
principle, we are enabled to understand something of what 
Way land here says, a Baptist authority, on p. 147: "From 
several of the previous numbers, it will be perceived that we 
believe the Baptists to hold a distinct position among the Pro- 
testant sects" 

We call your attention to this fact, that he records the Bap- 
tist Church as a sect ; that that is the light in which Dr. Way- 
land, a Baptist, and the author of this book, regards the Bap- 
tist Church. He regards it as a sect among other sects ; "that 
they entertain sentiments," he says, "which, if carried into 
practice, must render them somewhat peculiar, and that they 
are perfectly capable of establishing their own usages'* — they 
are capable of this as a matter of course — " and appealing to 
no other source than that of themselves, they are capable of 
establishing their own usages, and of adopting their modes of 
worship and rules of discipline." They are capable within 
themselves of doing all this, of adapting their modes of wor- 
ship and rules of discipline to the principles which they be- 
lieve, as embodied, according to Orchard, in the foundation, 
the foundation upon which their church rests, of adapting 
their principles to that foundation, and thus regulating their 
modes of worship and their discipline. Here, then, we say is 
the positive statement and testimony of Wayland, of the prin- 
ciples and practices of the Baptists ; he calls it, as before 
stated, a sect among other sects. I want to call your atten- 
tion to the fact, that he has not simply made this statement 
once, but he has made it on different occasions. Page 121 : 
"I have, on several occasions, alluded to the fact that we have 
suffered losses as Baptists, by following the customs of other 
denominations, which would almost seem, to an observer, that 



Dr. Lucas' Second (Reply. 311 

we were ashamed of our denominational sentiments, and took 
pleasure in testifying that between us and other sects there 
were no real points of difference. I think the points of differ- 
ence are important, and that our whole history is, in the highest 
degree, honorable to us as a Christian sect." Dr. Way land 
says the Baptist Church is a sect, but my friend says it is the 
visible church, or kingdom of Jesus Christ. Dr. Wayland 
says it is a sect among other sects, and that they are capable 
of arranging, as I read, to you, and of adapting their own 
modes of worship and rules of discipline, and this is Baptist 
authority on this question. We quote, not what anybody 
outside of the Baptist Church says about his organization or 
institution, but we quote such as he admits to be authorita- 
tive. He admits these as of authority and position in his 
church, and, therefore, we quote from them. 

His church is wrong, because it has the wrong foundation ; 
being founded, according to his own theory, at the time that 
he says it was, it can not rest upon the true foundation, 
because Jesus is presented as that foundation, and he was not 
the foundation until he was tried, tried by Satan's tempta- 
tions in the garden, and in his sufferings and in his poverty, 
and tried upon the cross at Calvary, when he suffered and 
died. " And. being made perfect," according to Paul, "he 
became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey 
him." He became the tried stone, and when tried the stone 
which the builders rejected has since that trial become the 
head corner ; upon this tried stone the church, or kingdom of 
Jesus Christ is established. But his church, he says, was 
established before this time, and consequently it was not built 
upon this tried stone ; and hence it is not the true church of 
Christ, because it is not founded upon the foundation that 
Christ presents to our view. But, then, it is not upon the 
true foundation, from this fact : Paul affirms in the second 
chapter of Ephesians and the closing part of the chapter, that 



312 Baptist Church Claims. 

the middle wall of partition was taken away when he was 
nailed to the cross — the middle wall of partition between Jew 
and Gentile was taken away ; and when this was done, the 
new man, the one new church was founded upon the founda- 
tion of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the 
chief corner-stone. That one new man, one new church was 
not founded, was not constituted, was not placed upon the 
foundation until after the middle wall of partition was taken 
away by the death of Jesus Christ. He says, his church 
was established before that time. Jesus says, his church was 
established, and so does Paul, after that time. They can not 
be mistaken. [Time Expired.] 



iSixih ©peninig. 



ELDER RAY'S THIRD ADDRESS. 



Mr. President, Brethren, Moderators, and Respected 
Audience : I feel happy this evening — this precious Sabbath 
evening — that I can have the privilege of standing up in sup- 
port of the proposition read again in your hearing. Before I 
proceed in my line of argument, I wish briefly to call your 
attention to some of the points in the last speech of my friend. 
And, first, in regard to his remark that the Greek Catholics 
claim succession. I understand that the Roman Catholics and 
Greek Catholics to be but the two great branches of Catho- 
licism. His trouble seems to remain in regard to the Bap- 
tist church, and what church I stand identified with. It 
seems, notwithstanding his great ability and learning, blind- 
ness has happened unto him in regard to the Baptists. For 
the life of him he can not imagine what church I belong to ; 
and yet I read from authorities setting forth our principles ; 

■ and the very fact that he accepted the position denying the 

1 proposition, is admitting that he understood what he was de- 
nying. But, if he does not understand the proposition, I will 

' try and continue to try to give him light upon it. I imagine 
that any person, who has ever been able to know anything 

i in regard to church matters, would not have the slightest 
difficulty in knowing my denominational whereabouts. But 



314 (Baptist Church Claims. 

the gentleman wants to know about the various denomina- 
tional names, and he mentions several names that have been by 
some applied to us ; and he imagines that they are different 
parts of the denomination. I still remark that we are known 
in history simply as Baptists — neither more, nor less ; and 
further information is given about our characteristics, faith, 
and practices, etc. But, if the Dr. wants me to say more upon 
my own responsibility, I will say that we are missionary Bap- 
tists, for our mission is to evangelize the world. I will say, 
again, that we are regular Baptists, for we observe the ordin- 
ances of the Lord's house in regular order. Third, I will say 
that we are separate Baptists, as we are distinguished from 
the world and other denominations by our peculiarities. 
Again, I will say we are united Baptists, because we are 
united in regard to the great principles of church organiza- 
tion; and, upon this point, I express the opinion that we 
stand more united in faith and practice than any other de- 
nomination that exists upon the face of the earth. Again, I 
will say that we are general Baptists, for we hold that Christ 
died for every man ; again, I will say that we are particular 
Baptists, for we exclude from our fellowship such as are given 
over absolutely to heresy, or immorality. And, that the gen- 
tleman may have full information upon the subject, I will say 
to him that I am identified with that great body of Baptists 
that declared " non-fellowship'' with Mr. Campbell and his 
Disciples, and excluded them from their fellowship ; and if 
he does not know who they were, he must search and find out. 
Dr. Jeter is identified with the same denomination; and I 
might speak of Richard Fuller, of Baltimore ; I might speak 
of the Broadduses ; I might speak of the works of Carson, of 
Ireland, of the Holmses, of the Clark's, and those mighty 
men of past years. I might speak of Dr. Williams, of Mis- 
souri, one of the giants of your ow T n beloved State, all of these 
have been identified with the same church, but, still the Dr. 



Elder (Ray's Third Address... 315 

can not tell to what denomination I belong ! He is very well 
informed on every other subject, but blindness is upon him 
in regard to the Baptists, and I am sorry for it. 

But, he tells us the kingdom has been prevailed against and 
overcome ; and yet, God has had a people all the time. He 
contends, also, that there can be no people of God out of the 
kingdom, therefore, his admission that there have been people 
of God all the time, is an admission that the kingdom of God 
has stood all the time. There is no escape from that conclu- 
sion. But, he says, that it died, and he gives an illustration. 
He says he has read history. Perhaps I have been entirely 
mistaken in regard to his historical research, or his ability, as 
a thorough historian, but I w T ant him to tell this people 
precisely when that kingdom died, how it died, and what was 
the disease of which it died, or who killed it; and I wish him 
to tell in what year it was buried. I ask him to tell me, also, 
who resurrected it from the dead, if it has ever had a resur- 
rection ; or, w T hether it still sleeps in the silent grave of death. 
It is hardly worth while to notice what he says in regard to 
the kingdom, when he makes the same speeches over again. 
Dear friends, every point that he has sprung, I believe has 
been up before us in the former proposition, and fully dis- 
cussed ; and in the written report of the discussion I do not 
wish all my speeches simply to be a repetition of the same 
thing. I shall let him go on in this line, however, for the 
present — until he gets tired of talking about matters that 
have already been thoroughly discussed and disposed of; and 
when he has gathered sufficient material. together to justify 
a reply, I shall make it. But it is evident, he will have to 
make the same speeches half a dozen times yet. When he 
gets done, I will reply to them in a few moments. 

So then I must advance in the line. Concerning his criti- 
cism about the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it;" 
"it" he says, must evidently refer to " rock." I find that Wil- 



(Baptist Church Claims. 



son's Emphatic Dioglott renders the Greek pronoun antes by 
"Iter? " the gates of hades shall not prevail against her. 1 ' 
The Dr. stands out against nearly the entire world of critics 
in regard to his interpretation of the passage. But his skill 
in Greek criticism was exhibited the other night, when he un- 
dertook to find a parallel to the command " repent, and be 
baptized," in the second of Acts ; but he did not find even a 
parallel word in the examples that he produced. And, then, 
he got to talking Greek ; and I want him to pronounce 
Greek to the students here that are learning that language. 
They are learning to pronounce Greek, and I would like to 
have the gentleman give them a few lessons in the pronuncia- 
tion of that language, inasmuch as he seems to be teacher and 
translator on this occasion. I ask him to come up to this work 
at once. 

But he says : "We admit the Baptist succession, for the sake 
of getting on." I do not want him to admit and deny, blow 
hot and cold with the same breath. If he intends to say that 
the Baptists have the succession, I wish him to admit it square- 
ly, and say boldly that the Baptists have stood from the time 
that Jesus was on earth until now. If he denies it, I want 
him to put his hand upon the man that set the Baptists up ; 
I wish no dodging the question. He professes to be a histo- 
rian, and this is one reason why I am willing to shoulder the 
expense of publishing this work to the world for future gen- 
erations. I desire a representative man before me, so that 
when I quote historical facts, if they were wrong, he might be 
able to show their fallacy. I am glad therefore that I have 
such an opportunity. If he will admit that we have the suc- 
cession from the time of Christ until now, I will go on from 
this time forth to develop other points of the line. If not, he 
must come directly to the point, and show where our succes- 
sion fails. 

But, he says, " I deny what Mr, Campbell has said in re- 



Elder (Ray's Third ^Address. 317 

gard to the kingdom being with the Baptists." Here, then, is a 
Disciple — a, son ecclesiastically, of that venerable man, who 
has passed away — who, when looking over the field of history, 
after years and years of investigation, deliberately said that 
the kingdom of God was with the Baptists, until his reforma- 
tion (that is the substance of his statement) ; here, I say, is a 
Disciple who stands up and says that Mr. Campbell made an 
erroneous statement. " I deny it." How strange that he will 
array himself thus against the ablest minds of his own church. 

But, the wrong name. He has gone back on the name 
Christos again. Well, dear friends, if we are to have the name 
of the Redeemer, it can not be Christ, because that is Christos 
in the Greek language. It is not a proper name. That is 
the name of his office. # The name is Jesus, called Joshua 
sometimes. That is the name of the Son of God. If we must 
adopt literally the name of the Redeemer, it must be Jesus. 
The gentleman knows this, as he is so learned in the Greek 
language. 

But, he says the Baptists have not the right foundation, 
and refers to Orchard upon this subject. Let us see what 
Orchard testifies, p. 367 : " Menno drew up his plan of doc- 
trine and practice entirely from the Scriptures, and threw it 
into the form of catechisms. His system was of a milder na- 
ture than had been adopted by the perfect class of ancient 
Baptists. He retained, indeed, all those doctrines commonly 
received among them, in relation to the baptism of infants, 
the millennium, the exclusion of the magistrates from the 
) Christian assemblies, the abolition of war, the prohibition of 
oaths, and the vanity as well as the pernicious effects of hu- 
man science. Their churches are founded on this principle, 
that practical piety is the essence of religion, and that the 
surest and most infallible mark of a true church, is the 
sanctity of its members." And now, the gentleman under- 
took from that to make an impression that these Mennonite 



318 (Baptist Church Claims. 

Baptists do not claim Jesus as the foundation — that piety and 
spirituality is the fundamental principle with them. I will 
ask him what is the foundation of piety ? Is it not Christ ? 
Such a sophism, it seems to me, is unworthy of this grave 
occasion. The fundamental principle with them is the piety 
of membership. Does he object to this ? It is not that they 
are founded upon an abstract principle, but that piety must 
grow out of their union with Christ as their foundation — 
which is acknowledged by all the denomination. 

But, then, he referred to Mr. Wayland, in regard to the 
Baptists (p. 147), where Mr. Wayland speaks of the Baptists 
among the Protestant sects, and says that they are pefectly 
capable of establishing their own usages, and of adopting their 
modes of worship and rules of discipline, and the Dr. aimed, 
it seemed to me, to make the impression that the Baptists 
claimed principles of their own authorship. If he had read 
Wayland through, he would have found what principles Mr. 
Wayland called Baptist principles, p. 149, he says : " One of 
our essential beliefs is that of the spirituality of the church, 
that is, that the church of Christ is composed exclusively of 
spiritual or regenerated persons." But then, again, on p. 13 : 
"The question is frequently asked, what is the creed, and 
what are the acknowledged standards of the Baptist churches 
in this country ? To this, the general answer has ever been, 
' Our rule of faith and practice is the New Testament.' We 
have no other authority to which we all profess submission." 
This is what he calls our rules and our usages. It is the New 
Testament, not dependent upon ecclesiastical councils and 
synods and courts, but the New Testament, and he emphasizes 
this stronger in another passage, p. 85: " The fundamental 
principle on which our difference from other evangelical de- 
nominations depends, is this : We profess to take for our 
guide, in all matters of religious belief and practice, the New 
Testament, the whole New Testament, and nothing but the New 



Elder (Ray's Third Address, 319 

Testament. What is not there commanded is not binding. 
No matter by what reverence for antiquity, by what tradition, 
by what councils, by what consent of any branches of the 
church, or the whole church, at any particular period, an 
opinion or practice may be sustained, if it be not sustained by 
the command or the example of Christ, or of his apostles, we 
value it only as a precept of man, and we treat it accordingly. 
We disavow the authority of man to add to or take from the 
teachings of inspiration, as they are found in the New Testa- 
ment. Hence, to a Baptist, all appeals to the fathers, or to 
antiquity, or general practice in early centuries, or in later 
times, are irrelevant and frivolous. He asks for divine au- 
thority as his guide in matters of religion, and if this be not 
produced, his answer is, ' in vain do ye worship me, teaching 
for doctrines the commandments of men.' " I have read this 
long extract to show that Way land stands out and contends 
firmly and faithfully for the New Testament — the Bible, and that 
alone — as containing our rules and usages that we are gov- 
erned by. 

But, then, again, in regard »to that authority mentioned 
from Cardinal Hosius. I want your attention to that a mo- 
ment (p. 364 of Orchard's History of the Baptists) : "If 
the truth of religion were to be judged of by the readiness 
and cheerfulness which a man of every sect shows in suffering, 
then the opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer or 
surer than those of the Anabaptists; since there have been 
none for these twelve hundred years past that have been more 
grievously punished." Showing that for 1200 years past those 
that he denominates Anabaptists have been grievously pun- 
ished for their principles, 1200 years before the reformation of 
the sixteenth century. Thus this man, a Catholic cardinal, 
testifies to the sufferings of the Baptists. 

Now, I want your attention, again, while I condense in as 
short space as possible the testimony of the gentleman's own 



320 (Baptist Church Claims. 

brethren for the succession of the church. Mr. Campbell 
has testified to the succession, as already read, and I wish to 
read from him again upon the subject (p. 65 of the Debate 
with Purcell) : " We can, however, show that from the 
earliest times there has existed a people whom no man can re- 
member, that have earnestly and consistently contended for 
the true faith once delivered to the saints." Showing that 
Mr. Campbell emphatically, repeatedly, and deliberately con- 
tended for the succession of the church. As shown already, 
he contended that that succession was with the Baptists until 
the Eeformation. 

But, I will call your attention to Moses Lard's Quarterly, 
for 1866, p." 309 : " The ' rock' is not that against which the 
unseen is not to prevail ; neither has the church ever become 
extinct. These we deem gross errors." Again: Mr. Fan- 
ning says (Living Pulpit, p. 520) : " The church was built 
upon the rock laid in Zion ; that she has withstood the rough 
waves of eighteen centuries ; and that she will finally triumph 
gloriously over all the principalities and powers of earth." 
Mr. Benjamin Franklin (Living Pulpit, p. 348) says: "A 
community not founded at the right time is not the kingdom 
of Christ." Page 350 : "If Popery was born too late, or is 
too young to be the true church, what shall be said of those 
communities born in the past three centuries ? They are all 
too young by largely more than a thousand years. No church 
that came into existence since the death of the apostles can 
be the church of the living God." David Lipscomb (Gospel 
Advocate, for 1867, p. 770) says : " God founded a church 
that ' will stand ' forever ; that the gates of hell shall not pre- 
vail against." Isaac Errett, another prominent Disciple, in 
his Elements of the Gospel, p. 40, says : " Here is the set- 
ting up of the kingdom. Here is seen ' the little stone cut 
out of the mountain without hands,' which Nebuchadnezzar 



Elder (kay's Third Address. 321 

saw, and which is yet to become a great mountain, and fill 
the whole earth. " 

I mention these to show that the entire weight of learning 
and criticism, from the great Mr. Campbell down, in the gen- 
tleman's church, contend for the perpetuity of the church, 
that it has stood from the time of Christ until the present 
time ; and testimony upon testimony may be heaped together. 
Mr. Scott, the commentator, says, in speaking of Mat. xvi. 
18 : "Yet the church, established on the person of Christ, 
as Emanuel, the prophet, priest, and king of his redeemed 
people, still subsists ; and it will assuredly ere long gain a de- 
cided victory over all its adversaries, of every name, on earth 
or in hell." This learned commentator contends for the per- 
petuity of the church, and so does nearly every commentator 
that can be found. I will state, that Benedict does not deny 
the perpetuity of the church, and I will venture to say he 
can not prove that Robinson denies it. I ask him , to read 
Robinson here, to-night, and see if he denies the succession. 
I deny that Robinson testifies against the succession of the 
church, and call upon him for the proof. He talks as if he 
thought that Robinson is against me. I deny it. Benedict 
is not against me. And I have the talent of his church in 
favor of my proposition that I am advocating now — I mean,^ 
the perpetuity of the church. I might continue to read the 
authorities upon this subject until my friend is completely 
buried and overwhelmed with authorities. 

But there are some that have attempted to show (not so 
well informed as my v/orthy friend, however) that the Anti- 
nomian brethren, because they call themselves the " Old Bap- 
tists, 5 ' are the original church. I have collected the testimony 
from the ablest " old school" writers, admitting that they se- 
ceded from the denomination to which I belong. If the gen- 
tleman denies it, I have the testimony with me. I have the 



322 (Baptist Church Claims. 

testimony in regard to Eoger Williams. There are some peo- 
ple who speak of Eoger Williams as the progenitor of the 
Baptists of America. That is not the fact. While he em- 
braced, to a large extent, Baptist principles, and took a lead- 
ing part in planting Rhode Island colony, John Clark took the 
most prominent part in the planting of that colony, and in 
establishing Baptist principles in this country. I say, that 
John Clark, one of the brightest names in the history of the 
past, planted a church at Newport, Rhode Island, one year 
before the Providence society was organized. That church 
stands now with its original principles, and has stood through 
the storms of ages, from 1638 to the present time. Roger 
Williams, as I have the facts to show, only remained four 
months with that little society that he and Holliman set up. 
While he lived he never was connected with any other church 
organization. This society went down. 

I have here the testimony where at least twenty Regular 
Baptist ministers, baptized in Europe, and all except two or- 
dained there, who came across the briny deep and planted the 
Baptist principles here in the forests of America — I mean, 
they aided in the planting of churches. 

Thomas Griffiths, one of those noble Welsh Baptists, with 
the church of which he was pastor, emigrated to America, 
and settled in Pennsylvania, where the church was called the 
Welsh Tract church. They kept up their church meetings 
while crossing the rolling billows of the Atlantic Ocean ; and 
while surrounded by savages and wild beasts in the wilds of 
America they never ceased to worship the God of our fathers 
in a church capacity. They sent out colonies from that 
church, and there is one called the Welsh Neck church on 
the Pedee River, in South Carolina. That old Welsh Tract 
church was a hive which swarmed, or sent out colonies to 
form other churches. When I think of that dangerous time, 
and of those noble men that suffered in old continental 



Elder (Ray's Third Address. 323 

Europe, and who had been oppressed and persecuted ; and who 
fled to our country and planted the very principles that were 
finally incorporated into the Constitution of the United States, 
those principles of liberty which Thomas Jefferson learned 
from a little Baptist church, the true principles of free gov- 
ernment, I thank God that we have such a history, and I 
thank God that He has preserved His church. [Time Ex- 
pired.] 



DR. LUCAS' THIRD REPLY. 



Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen — My 
friend is now on his second night, and if you can find out 
where the argument is that he has offered, to show that his 
church possesses the characteristics which entitle it to be re- 
garded as the visible church, or kingdom of Jesus Christ, then 
I will simply say that you are more fortunate than myself, for 
I have yet to see the argument. He has spent the former and 
his present speech almost entirely upon the doctrine of succes- 
sion, and yet he says that it is not necessary to establish suc- 
cession in order to show the identity of his church. He has 
spent all the time thus far in laboring to prove something that 
he says is not necessary to establish the truth of his proposi- 
tion. If we were to admit succession, then he has gained 
nothing. But I call your attention to Orchard. He has 
labored to make the impression that the Anabaptists, as I 
understand him, have suffered or had suffered for twelve hun- 
dred years. I say this passage does not prove it. It does not 
say so, but it says this : "If the truth of religion were to be 
judged of by the readiness and cheerfulness which a mar of 
any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion 
of no sect can be truer and surer than that of the Anabaptists, 
since there have been none for these twelve hundred years 
past suffered more than they." Not that they have existed for 
the last twelve hundred years, but that a great many persons 
have suffered during that period, but "there have been none 
in that period of time that have suffered more than the Ana- 
baptists." But my friend would make the impression that 



Or. Lucas' Third (Reply. 325 

the Anabaptists have been suffering all those twelve hundred 
years. That is the reason why I called for the authority last 
night. 

My friend says that the Greek church and the Catholic 
church, as I understand him, are the same — they constitute 
one Catholic church. I will simply state that I suppose there 
is no one else here that understands the Greek church and 
the Catholic church to be one and the same. They are as 
distinct as any other two organizations upon the footstool of 
God. Both of them claim that they can trace a succession to 
the apostles, and I claim that is just about as good as my 
worthy friend's and the Baptist church to which he belongs 
can do. He sympathizes with me very much, because I lack 
the necessary perception to see the point. I am under very 
great obligations to my friend for his sympathy — under great 
1 obligations to him. But things are as they are, and I will 
have to let them stand so. "With all his greatness, with all 
his powers, and his clear perception of the fact himself, and 
with his great command of language, I will simply say I do not 
see it yet. He has even made the thing a little darker in his 
last speech than it was before. I think I understand pretty well 
i where he is, but then I want him to tell us, that the audience 
may know, and that all who read this debate may know where 
! he is. He is not talking merely for me, but he is talking for 
I all and to all that hear this discussion, and who may read it. 
And it comes out that while we have some ten different Bap- 
tist churches the gentleman belongs to all of them. That is 
Uhe impression made by his last speech. He is a General 
Baptist, and he is a Missionary Baptist, he is a Particular 
' Baptist, and he is a United Baptist — he belongs to nearly all of 
; them. This may be true, but I will say lean not very readily 
I see how a man can belong to so many distinct churches at the 
I same time. We undertake to say that these churches are 
i distinct organizations, that they are distinct churches, every 



326 (Baptist Church Claims, 

one independent of the other — not only in a congregational 
sense, but they have their independent associations, and in 
the very history from which we gathered the names of these 
different Baptist churches we find that it is stated that they 
hold but very little in common. They agree on the indepen- 
dency of their congregations, and their views with regard to 
the subject and action of baptism, so their histories state. 
But I would like for my friend to tell us whether he under- 
stands in his history, giving the history of the Baptists, 
that the Particular Baptists, the General Baptists, the Old 
Connection, the New Connection, the Scotch Baptists, the 
Begular Baptists, the Seventh Day Baptists, the Free-Will 
Baptists, and the Missionary Baptists, are all the same church. 
I would like that he would settle this question at once. He 
would seem to make the impression that he belongs to all of 
them. But he started out, I believe, with the Baptists with- 
out the qualifying phrase, and all those who have the qualifying 
phrase, such as "General" or "Particular," or "Seventh-Day," 
that they are sects that have gone off from the Baptist church. 
This was his statement in the beginning, and now it turns out 
that the descriptive phrase is not so objectionable after all, 
and that he not only belongs to one church that has the de- 
scriptive phrase, but that he belongs to pretty near all of them. 
This is clearing up matters with a vengeance. 

But, again, the church "prevailed against," and yet God 
has always^ had a people. We have quoted the language of 
the word of God upon this subject, where the saints have been 
prevailed against and overcome, and yet we state that God 
has always had a people in Babylon, even at the time that the 
church was prevailed against, and the saints of God were 
overcome. But the gentleman has failed to tell us whether 
this people, in Babylon, constituted the visible church, 
or kingdom of Jesus Christ, while they were in Babylon ; 
and whether they constitute what he calls the Baptist 



(Dr. Lucas' Third (Reply. 327 

Church, with their unbroken chain of succession. He has 
failed to tell us this ; and he wants to know what we 
have to say about the church when it went into the wilder- 
ness, and there is a question raised in regard to its death. We 
have simply denied the gentleman's proposition, and we want 
him to prove it. The gentleman is on the proving side now. 
We have denied his statement in regard to his succession, and 
we want him to prove it ; then it will be time enough for us 
to attend to these other points. It will be time enough after 
he has proved, at least to his own brethren, to those that may 
hear him, that his position is correct. 

He calls our attention again to Mat. xvi. 18. I will simply 
say that, so far as that passage is concerned, that Dr. Clarke, 
one of the ripest scholars that has ever lived, takes precisely 
the same position upon this subject that we have taken. But, 
as before stated, so far as this argument is concerned, it makes 
but little difference whether I admit that the pronoun "it* 
stands for church or not, for he has admitted that the succes- 
sion — to prove a succession — is not necessary in order to 
identify his church. Then, suppose I were to admit, for the 
sake of argument, that the antecedent of the pronoun there is 
" church." Suppose I were to admit that the succession of 
the church is a fact — that there is an unbroken chain from 
the apostles to the present time — according to his own show- 
ing, this is not necessary in order to prove the identity of the 
church. I ask him, then, what he has gained ? I told the gen- 
tleman last evening, that I would admit that "it" stands for 
church for the sake of the argument, that he might be in- 
duced to advance, though, personally, I do not believe a word 
of it. I do not believe any man on the face of the earth can 
prove an unbroken line of succession ; but as it affects not the 
question one way or the other, according to his own admission, 
I admit it that he may advance. My position upon this 
subject, however, is perfectly definite. I state again, I do 



328 (Baptist Church Claims.. 

not believe a word in regard to this unbroken chain of suc- 
cession. 

But, " Greek criticism :" The gentleman says I claim to 
be a scholar. I have not made any claim in that direction; 
but I will now say that I do claim to know when a man does 
not know. My friend is the individual that puts up the 
claim ; for when he started upon this great effort of his to 
exterminate what he calls Campbellism, over in Illinois, at 
Blandinville, where he wanted all the strength of the Camp- 
bellite church, as he called it, in one man (so I was informed), 
that he could demolish it at one mighty stroke, and put it out 
of existence forever. Well, this is the man ; this is the great 
man. Then he wanted to go to the Campbellite Jerusalem, at 
Canton, as he called it. He was ready to debate at Canton, 
LaGrange, Monticello, and then in all the region round about. 
He is the great man, a great man, truly. We will concede to 
him a great amount of greatness, and his failure appears with 
the greater force. 

Dr. Bay, from Kentucky, is a great man, a Campbellite ex- 
terminator. But now, with regard to criticism, I call your 
attention to the statement in the first passage mentioned by 
me last night. My friend stated, either upon his own author- 
ity or upon the authority of his counsellor here, that there is 
but one verb imperative in that passage, and that is of the 
second person plural ; and in the other, that all the verbs in 
the passage are of the same person and number. Now, we 
refer again to those passages. We will state his proposition, 
the argument, as we understand him, on the 2d of Acts was, 
that, as the word rendered " repent" was plural, and of the 
second person imperative, and " be baptized," in the passage, 
was of the third person singular, that those verbs could not 
have the same subject ; and, therefore, the argument founded 
upon the passage by the connection of repentance and baptism 
by the conjunction, and the design there expressed by the 



(Dr. Lucas' Third (Reply. 329 

word " for," could not relate to repentance as it did to baptism, 
those verbs not being of the same person, and not of the same 
number, and not having the same subject. Our position was, 
that verbs used as in this case, where one verb is of the sec- 
ond person and plural number imperative, and the other of 
the third person singular imperative, that they were fre- 
quently used in connection as there used, while they had not 
two subjects, but one, that there is but one subject with both 
verbs. We called attention to some plays recorded in Euri- 
pides where this is true, as well as to the rule in grammar 
where this fact is recognized. I come to the passage under 
consideration ; and probably I do not know how to pronounce 
Greek — I say, that possibly ; but I guess I will pronounce it 
so that those who understand Greek will know what I mean, 
at any rate. 

Now, then, we take the passage : In 1st Corinthians xiv. 
37, the first verb that appears is zeeloute. We state, that 
this verb is of the second person, plural number, and impera- 
tive. Put that down in your book ; for, if Brother Ray is a 
scholar, he will have to look over his Greek again, notwith- 
standing all his scholarship. Brother Cook never told him 
that there is but one verb imperative here, I will venture to 
say. But I call the attention of every scholar in the house to 
what I state, and we will see whether my friend is correct. 
The second verb employed is kooluete. We state, that this 
verb is of the second person, plural in number, imperative. 
Here are two verbs where my friend said there is only one. 
Here are two verbs quoted of the second person, plural num- 
ber, imperative.* We will give you another, ginesthoo. 
Here is another verb in the same passage that we quoted last 
night (and I guess I can pronounce it so that Brother Cook 
can understand what I am talking about, whether my friend 
can or not) which is the third verb employed in the passage ; 
a nd now we state that t his verb is of the third person, singu- 

:,! Dr. Lucas made a mistake. These verbs are not in the '6~,th verse: Th y are m the 
39*A and ¥)th verses.— I). B. Ray. 



330 (Baptist Church Claims, 

lar number, and imperative. Here are three verbs in the 
passage, two of them of the second person, plural number, \ 
and imperative, and the last one of the third person singular 
imperative. We are willing to stop talking in this contro- 
versy whenever we are convicted of wrong on this subject. 
We do not claim to be scholarly ; but we are perfectly willing 
to surrender the whole point when you convict me of error in 
regard to these verbs in this passage. We will just yield the 
whole point whenever we are convicted of error upon this 
point, and say we are not qualified to go on with the discus- 
sion, and we will give the gentleman a chance to show his 
scholarship and great ability. 

In the 16th chapter of 1st Corinthians and 13 th verse, the 
first verb in the passage is greegoreite ; this verb is of the second 
person, plural number and imperative. The next verb in 
the passage is steelcete, that is of the second person, plural num- 
ber and imperative. The third verb is krataiousthe, and this 
verb is of the third person, plural and imperative. The next 
verb is ginesthoo, of the third person singular imperative. 
When it is stated that these verbs are precisely the same, we 
say that two of the verbs are of the same person, plural num- 
ber and imperative ; while the other two are of the third per- 
son, one of them plural and imperative, and the other of the 
third person singular imperative. Convict us of error in re- j 
gard to these verbs, if you can, and, again, we say, we will sur- 
render the point. We are willing to risk what we state in re- 
gard to these verbs, we are willing to risk all that can be said J 
against our position by the learned gentleman, by my learned 
friend from Lexington, Kentucky, Brother Ray — for his coun- 
sellors last night led him into difficulty. So much for Greek 
criticism for the present. 

But, " succession" again. He is determined to have that 
up, and to talk about that, and while he attempts to reply to 
Dr. Lucas, he gets up and runs the whole round, again and 



(Dr. Lucas' Third (Reply. 331 

again — the same thing every time. I am not especially sensi- 
tive upon that point. What I have to say, the audience hear, 
and they will decide that question. But, he starts out with 
succession, succession, succession, and succession, and that has 
been the great question from the beginning to the present 
time, and, of course, he has given you something new every 
time. He does not talk about the same thing. No ! no ! He 
has a large fund of knowledge on hand, that he can give you 
something new every time. Succession, and Campbell, and 
Lard, Campbell and Lard, Lard and Campbell, that is some- 
thing new every time. Well, give us something new again, 
Brother Ray, when you get up, tell us about succession, 
Campbell and Lard, Lard and Campbell. [Laughter.] 

But, the foundation — the foundation again. One argument 
that we brought against his church was, that it was not 
founded upon the Bible foundation, and we called attention 
to the quotation where it is said to have been founded upon a 
principle, and also to Way land's " Principles and Practices of 
the Baptists," where their worship and rules of discipline 
were founded and arranged according to the principles em- 
bodied in the foundation, and where Dr. Way land says, "the 
Baptist church is a sect among other sects." While he says 
that Dr. Way land states that " the New Testament is our only 
creed." Now, I state that there is not a Protestant church in 
the land but says, " We take the word of God as the only rule 
of faith and practice." Yet, we know that every single one of 
them has a creed and confession of faith and discipline. Well, 
it may be that is the idea that Dr. Way land had of the matter. 
He takes the word of God as the only rule of faith and prac- 
tice, yet the Baptists are capable, according to the principles 
that serve as the basis of their establishment, of forming their 
own rules of worship and discipline. 

With regard to succession, we call your attention to a 
passage or two again, for we have to talk about this as long 



332 (Baptist Church Claims. 

as the gentleman, for he is leading and we are following ; he 
is affirming, we are replying. On page 188, of the "Reli- 
gious Encyclopedia" — we are quoting from Baptists — and 
we invite attention to what they say upon this subject : 
" Innumerable volumes have been written under the title of 
Church History, but, after all, we know but very little of 
the real church of Christ for many hundred years. We have 
very ample account of the Antichristian church, that false 
pretender, in unhallowed alliance with the Icings of the earth, and 
drunken with the blood of the saints ; but the history of the un- 
corrupted church, which maintained the worship and ordin- 
ances of Christ while all the world was wondering after the beast, 
is enveloped in obscurity, in the obscurity of that retreat which 
God prepared for her in the wilderness" Here, for several hun- 
dred years, he says, we have no reliable history of the church, 
but its history is enveloped in the obscurity attending the 
people of God while in the wilderness. That is the statement 
of this Baptist authority. We call your attention to another 
statement, found on page 1149: "For, after all, an uninterrupt- 
ed succession, however gratifying it may be to be able to trace 
it, is necessary only to the church which regulates its prac- 
tices by tradition, and not by the word of God.'" Now, were 
we to admit it according to Benedict and Bobinson, but my 
friend says that Bobinson does not deny the succession. Sup- 
pose he does not ? Bobinson says that the succession — and 
Benedict quotes it as we have read time and again in your 
hearing — is necessary only for that church that relies upon 
tradition and not upon the word of God, and consequently 
whether it be true or false, whether he denies or admits it, 
amounts to nothing in the settlement of the question before 
us. Further, in regard to the foundation. We state that 
Jesus became the foundation after he was tried, and then the 
stone which the builders rejected became the head of the corner. 
He was tried by the temptation of Satan ; he was tried by his 



(Dr. Lucas' Third (Reply. 333 

poverty ; he was tried by his suffering in the garden ; he was 
tried by his suffering at Pilate's bar ; he was tried by his suf- 
fering upon the cross ; and, consequently, as he entered not 
into the foundation as a tried stone till after he was tried, as 
the gentleman says his church was established and built be- 
fore that time, it could not be upon this foundation, therefore 
the gentleman is wrong in regard to the foundation. But 
again, in Ephesians, where it is affirmed that the middle wall 
of partition was taken away by Jesus nailing it to the cross ; 
and after that the one new man, one new church, was buik 
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ 
himself being the chief corner-stone. [Time Expired.] 



ELDER RAY'S FOURTH ADDRESS. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen : I will simply make a proposition to the Dr. , 
and that is, to leave the settlement of the Greek criti- 
cism to those who are known to be Greek scholars in this 
community. I will simply state, however, that his first word 
Zeloute is not in the passage referred to. I believe it is two 
or three verses below ; and then the other words that he re- 
ferred to have no particular connection — I mean they are not 
parallel verbs to those used in Acts ii. 38 — not connected by 
the conjunction in order to procure the same result — nothing 
like it — and I state that his criticism is entirely wrong. 
Epiginosketo is found there, it is true, and is in the singular 
number. But the word — 1st Cor. xvi. 13 — that he mentioned 
there as in the second person plural — 

Mr. Lucas — Tell us what it is ? 

Mr. Eay — Gregoreite. That is about as good as you can 
do. [Laughter.] But then, again, the other verbs in the 
other two lines are all in the second person, plural number, 
and not connected like those in Acts ii. 38. If I state it in- 
correctly, I will let it go into the record, but I am going to 
have the testimony of scholars upon this point, I do not care 
to have it stand upon my own assertion. If the gentleman 
wants me to pronounce these Greek words, I think, my dear 
friends, that I can pronounce them as well as he did, and so I 
am satisfied. I wish him to give lessons in Greek. Let him 
pronounce Greek for the rising generation of students in this 
community. Go on, and give us lessons in the language. 



Elder (Ray's Fourth Address. 335 

But the Dr. says Orchard does not testify, as I supposed. 
Well, I never found but one man, I believe, before, that put 
such a construction upon that language of Cardinal Hosius, 
and I do not think that he knew very much about history 
and the construction of language. Cardinal Hosius says, as 
I have already quoted from Orchard, p. 364 : "If the truth 
of religion were to be judged of by the readiness and cheerful- 
ness which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the 
opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer or surer than 
those of the Anabaptists ; since there have been none for 
these twelve hundred years past that have been more grievously 
punished," 

But, the gentleman says I have got him deeper and deeper 
♦into confusion. I told you that blindness had happened to 
my friend, in regard to the Baptists, consequently it is impos- 
sible for me to open his eyes ; and the more light I throw 
upon him, the more it seems to obscure his vision. He can 
not understand it ; and yet, sir, I do not believe we have an 
intelligent freedman in all the South, but what would know 
who the Baptists are, if you were to ask him. I do not be- 
lieve there is a man or woman so unintelligent in all this re- 
gion round about, but could tell, if I were to ask the de- 
nomination with which my worthy Brother Cook is connected. 
Also, tne college, of high repute, of which he is president, 
belongs to the same denomination. And yet Dr. Lucas can 
not tell for the life of him who the Baptists are ! ! ! I was not 
so ignorant concerning his church. I knew exactly what it 
was, and I was prepared to give him a lesson or two on some 
points connected with it myself. But he does not know ! How 
gross is his darkness upon that subject. He is very learned 
in the Greek, you know. I am glad of that ; I am going to 
learn Greek as we go along ; I am going to commence the 
study of it now. 

I remark, in regard to the Baptists, that in history they are 



336 (Baptist Church Claims. 

simply known as Baptists ; and common people, with common 
intelligence, never had any difficulty in finding out who they 
were, but a great man, like the Dr., can not get down to the 
information on that subject. All the names that have been 
used here have been applied to us by persons that wanted to 
distinguish some of the brethren, for various causes, from 
each other. The gentleman has got a dozen names, and he 
imagines there are a dozen Baptist denominations. That's 
what is the matter with him. When his people are called 
Disciples by some, suppose I had said that is one denomina- 
tion; then there are the Reformers — well, that is another. 
Now, which do you belong to, Dr. Lucas? Here are "Re- 
formers," "Disciples," and "Christians," and I can not tell, 
for the life of me, which church you belong to. Suppose I 
had said this, dear friends. It seems to me it is quibbling. 
Here is a denomination outnumbering any denomination in 
America, outside of Romanism — a denomination whose mis- 
sionaries are in all the countries of the earth ; whose influence 
is shaking the thrones of the old world, and yet, a representa- 
tive of an enlightened denomination, standing up here, don't 
know anything about it ! I do confess, my dear friends, that 
I am a little ashamed of the Dr. on that subject. Now, on 
every other subject, he certainly is very learned — especially 
Greek ! 

But he says I admitted succession is not necessary. No, 
sir ; I have admitted that the proof of the succession, from 
the uninspired historic standpoint, is not essential to our 
church identity ; and if you have kept up the connection of 
that argument, you will find that I have constructed an argu- 
ment that if I sustain a succession from the inspired historic 
standpoint I prove all the rest, because I have proved that the 
gentleman's church has no succession, only to Alexander 
Campbell, about forty-six years ago ; and I have shown that the 
Pedobaptist churches obtain their succession from Rome ; that 



Elder (Ray's Fourth Address. 337 

the Roman Catholic church is the great Antichrist ; and 
there is but one church that has the succession ; therefore it 
falls to the Baptists' by inheritance, because no other Church has 
it. That is the argument. It t belongs to one church ; it can 
not belong to Rome, or any of its branches ; It does not be- 
long to the gentleman's church, because that is of too recent 
origin ; therefore it falls to us by inheritance. There is no 
escape from that argument. I defy the powers of earth to 
refute it. That is what I made the argument for. You see 
where it begins to pinch a little. I wish your attention to 
that argument. I wish to bring it to bear that my friend 
may see its force. 

Why don't he answer those questions that I have asked ? I 
asked him when the church died ; when it became extinct ; 
when it was buried ; when it was resurrected. Has God's 
word failed ? I put him in direct antagonism to God's eter- 
nal word. He says : I will admit the succession ; I will admit 
tlie Baptists had a succession all the time ; yet I don't believe it ! 
Will you get me to contradict myself before this people in 
that way ? Did you ever catch me in any such snap as that ? 
I want you -to admit it without mental reservation, with all 
your heart and soul, mind and strength, or else show me that 
the proofs are insufficient. Examine the testimony to show 
that Campbell is false, to show that Ypeij and Dermont are 
false ; but don't inform the people that you admit the succes- 
sion, but don't believe it ! This question is not going to be 
passed by as easily as you now suppose. 

But, " Ray went to Illinois to kill Campbellism." Who 
said so ? I never did. I never heard any of my brethren 
say so. I suppose that the Campbellites got scared over 
there, fearing that I was going to kill them ! And the Dr. 
learned that I had said I wanted to get all the wisdom of 
Campbellism into one man, and then I was going to kill the 
animal. I did not say it. Somebody has made a mistake. 



338 (Baptist Church Claims. 

But some persons at Blandinville told me that Dr. Lucas was 
one of the most learned men in the denomination. One 
brother of the Dr. told me that he was the only man that had 
the ability to discuss the question. That is the reason it took 
them a month to get a man. They selected Dr. Lucas. Some of 
the brethren said : " What can you do with the man? he is 
so able. How are you going to meet him? Dr. Lucas is 
such a great man in debate." " Indeed," said 1 to some of the 
brethren, "I am glad to hear it. If all the wisdom in that 
church were combined in one man. it could not be proved 
that the church which Alexander Campbell set up is the 
church of Christ, no more than they can prove that Alexan- 
der Campbell is Jesus Christ." I did not talk about compar- 
ing my wisdom. But suppose you have all the wisdom in 
that church in one cranium, and then let that man undertake 
to prove that a man forty-five years old is Jesus Christ, the 
veritable Jesus Christ, and he could not do it, could he? 
That is just the point I was making. Your informant missed 
the figure. You ought not to tell every little report you 
hear, unless you know more about it, any how 7 , because it may 
get you into trouble. 

But, then, I must give you a little more succession. The 
succession troubles the gentleman very much. The charge is 
sometimes made that the Baptists originated recently ; I say 
by men that do not understand it, men who are ignorant of 
our history. I wish now to quote the testimony of a learned 
work prepared by Wm. H. Hall, Esq., quoted in Trilemma, 
p. 137, which was begun in London in 1788, and completed in 
three large folio volumes. This Encyclopedia says : "It is to 
be remarked that the Baptists, or Mennonites, in England and 
Holland, are to be considered in a very different light from the 
enthusiasts we have been describing ; and it appears equally 
uncandid and invidious to trace up their distinguished senti- 
ments, as some of their adversaries have done, to those obnox- 



Elder (Ray's Fourth Address. 339 

ious characters, and then to stop, in order, as it were, to asso- 
ciate with it the ideas of turbulence and fanaticism, with 
which it certainly has no natural connection. Their coinci- 
dence with some of those oppressed and infatuated people, in 
denying baptism to infants, is acknowledged by the Baptists, 
but they disavow the practice which the appellation of Ana- 
baptist implies ; and their doctrines seem referable to a more 
ancient and respectable origin. They appear supported by 
history in considering themselves the descendants of the Wal- 
denses, who were so grievously oppressed and persecuted by 
the despotic heads of the Romish hierarchy. " This is the tes- 
timony of those who are not Baptists. The learned writer 
in this Encyclopedia says that the sentiments of the Baptists 
and their history are referable to the ancient Waldenses that 
were persecuted in the olden time for the faith as delivered to 
the saints. I design to call your attention, before I sit down, 
to the testimony of an historian, George Waddington, the au- 
thor of a book called "The History of the Church" — a learned 
Episcopalian. On p. 70 : "In regard to Novatian, Mr. Wad- 
dington said : "We consider the Christian church as a society 
where virtue and innocence reigned universally, and refused 
any longer to acknowledge as members of it those w 7 ho had 
once degenerated into unrighteousness. This endeavor to re- 
vive the spotless purity of the primitive faith was found in- 
consistent with the corruptions of even that early age ; it w T as 
regarded w T ith suspicion by the early prelates, as a vain and 
visionary scheme, and those rigid principles, w T hich had char- 
acterized and sanctified the church in the first century, were 
abandoned to the profession of schismatic sectaries in the 
third. 

"From a review of what has been written on this subject, 
some truths may be derived of considerable historical impor- 
tance, the following among them : 1st. In the midst of per- 
petual dissent and occasional controversy, a steady and dis- 



340 (Baptist Church Claims. 

tinguisbable line, both in doctrine and practice, was maintain- 
ed by the early church," &c. This shows that even prior to 
what is called the Novatian rupture by historians, that the 
line in faith and practice had been steadily preserved, and 
that those denominated by Waddington heretics and schis- 
matics, and so considered by the church of Rome, held the 
original faith of the church in its parity ; it was Rome that 
departed from the faith, and not those that were then denom- 
inated Novatians. 

But, now, again, in regard to the succession of the church. 
I call attention to some of the statements of the learned Mos- 
heim, Church History, p. 491 : "It may be observed, in the 
first place, that the Mennonites are not entirely in an error 
when they boast of their descent from the Waldenses, Petro- 
brusians, and other ancient sects, who are usually considered 
as witnesses of the truth, in times of general darkness and 
superstition. Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay 
concealed, in almost all the countries of Europe, particularly 
in Bohemia, Moravia, Switzerland, and Germany, many per- 
sons, who adhered tenaciously to the following doctrine, which 
the Waldenses, Wickliffites, and Hussites, had maintained, 
some in a more disguised, and others in a more open and pub- 
lic manner, viz : 'That the kingdom of Christ, or the visible 
church which he established upon earth, was an assembly of 
true and real saints, and ought, therefore, to be inaccessible 
to the wicked and unrighteous, and also exempt from all tho?e 
institutions which human prudence suggests to oppose the 
progress of iniquity, or to correct and reform transgressors. '" 
Here we have the testimony of this very learned historian ; 
although bitterly prejudiced against the Baptists, yet he is | 
forced to testify that they are not mistaken entirely when they 
boast of their origin from those ancient witnesses of the truth, 
witnesses for God." Then again, on p. 490, he says: "The; 
true origin of that sect which acquired the denomination of 



Elder (Ray's Fourth Address. 341 

Anabaptists, by their administering anew the rite of baptism to 
those who came over to their communion, and derived that of 
Mennonites from the famous man to whom they owe the great- 
est part of their present felicity, is hid in the depths of an- 
tiquity, and is, of consequence, extremely difficult to be ascer- 
tained." Instead of doing as some of the enemies of the per- 
secuted Baptists have done, attributing their origin to " John 
Menno," he says their origin is hid in the depths of antiquity, 
and tracing them back he leaves them, showing that he fails 
to find a human head, a human origin for the Baptists. I 
defy the powers of men on earth, or the powers of hades to tell 
the founder of the Baptists, this side of Jesus Christ, I wish 
the gentleman, when he denies our proposition, to come 
squarely up and meet the issue. Our position stands unmoved, 
while the representative champions of his church deny that 
we are the church of Christ, yet, dear friends, all the church 
succession they ever had in the way of baptism came from 
those that are excluded from our fellowship — every bit of it ; 
and if we are Antichrist or Babylon, they got their baptism 
from Antichrist or from Babylon, and are they any better ? 
Do you not see the difficulty he has gotten himself into in this 
proposition ? He has not studied history, and no wonder he 
reads, and stops, and hesitates, and then tells what he has 
done, like the boy whistling in the graveyard, to keep his spir- 
its up. 

But now, then, in regard to other testimony : I call your 
attention, just at this point, as I shall come to it directly, to 
very important testimony in regard to the sufferings of the 
Baptists. Before I do this, however, I want your attention 
again to the fact (and I will advance, and let him rest on the 
succession, or this part of it, for a little while), that the Bap- 
tists possess the Bible characteristics of having no head except 
Jesus Christ, no leader except him. They do not point to 
some great man, and. when some man talks about our princi- 



342 (Baptist Church Claims. 

pies, say that Alexander Campbell is our head and leader, or 
John Wesley is our leader. No ; we point back up the 
stream of time to the Nazarene on Calvary's cross, and say, 
Jesus is the founder of his own church, Jesus is our head ; 
and through long centuries they were called the Acephali. I 
suppose the gentleman understands that ; he is a Greek 
scholar. That means, the headless. Because Baptists had no 
head, no human head, like the hierarchies, they were denom- 
inated the headless church. They had but one head, and that 
was Jesus Christ. And, in this connection, I will quote a 
passage (Desilver's Religious Denominations in Great Britain and 
America, p. 51) : " The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of 
the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all 
power for the calling, institution, order, or government of the 
church is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner." The 
Baptist Manual says: " We acknowledge no founder but 
Christ." 

But, now, we call upon the Dr., and plead with him to an- 
swer our questions. I will try to answer his questions, and if 
I can not it will be because I do not know how. If I fail to 
do it, it is because the flesh is weak. Now, Dr., please an- 
swer me, Who was the founder of the Bdjrtist Church, if Christ 
was not ? When you ask me who the founder of your church 
is, I will tell you. You can talk eloquently upon the con- 
struction of the Greek language, but I wish you to tell this 
people where the Baptists started. I want you to tell this 
people, and those who are to come after — shall I say, future 
generations, perhaps generations unborn, when my head is 
asleep under the sod (for then this question may be asked) — 
who founded the Baptist Church ! Echo answers, Who ? Dr., 
I want this people to know that it was Jesus of Nazareth, 
the Son of the most high God. The Baptist Church is the 
church of the living God, because it was founded by Jesus Christ! 

But, now we come to another important argument, in my 



Elder (Ray's Fourth Address. 



line, showing that the Baptist is the church of Christ, became 
it is the martyr churcli. The passage he has quoted, I will 
quote again — Dan. vii. 21 — the papal horn that grew upon 
the head of the ten-horned and seven-headed beast — that 
"youngest horn" — as Mr. Campbell denominates it — "of 
Daniel's sea monster, that spoke great swelling words against 
God. It had a mouth, and eyes, and wisdom ; and it is said, 
" I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints and 
prevailed against them." But in the very same chapter and 
27th verse, it says, the " kingdom is an everlasting kingdom." 
Not against the kingdom, but against the saints — members of 
the church, did the little horn prevail, during the long and 
dreary ages — 1260 years. 

Revelations xvii. 6, there we find: " The women drunken 
with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs 
of Jesus." That great Babylonish harlot — that false church, 
called Babylon, which rode upon the bloody beast — was 
drunk with the blood of the saints, and my friend says that 
those saints were in Babylon. Then she was drunk with the 
blood of her own members ! Is there any reason in such an 
argument ? Do you mean that the Catholics were murdering 
their own members — drunk with the blood of their own mem- 
bers ? They could not have been martyrs of Jesus, when they 
were symbolizing with Antichrist and were guilty of idolatry. 
If so, they were not witnesses for God. Martyr ! Look and 
see what martyr means. You will find it to be witness. They 
were witnesses for Christ — along those dark and dreary ages — 
for the church of the living God. And I want your atten- 
tion to the testimony of a very learned historian — a Catholic 
— Louis Cormenin. In his history of the Popes, part 2, p. 
197, he says : "In Germany it was still worse, the reformed, 
moved by religious fanaticism, pursued the sect of the Ana- 
baptists with the utmost rigor, and exercisied such frightful 
cruelties toward them, that the hair rises on the head when 



344 (Baptist Church Claims. 

we read the recitals that historians have given us. Instead 
of being intimidated by tortures, these new martyrs surren- 
dered themselves to their executioners ; they were seen 
mounting the funeral piles, singing the praises of God ; the 
most delicate females sought the most cruel torments, to give 
proof of their faith ; young virgins walked to punishment more 
gaily than to the nuptial ceremony ; the men evinced not the 
least signs of fear, when contemplating the terrible instruments 
of torture ; they sang psalms while the executioners were 
tearing off their flesh with red hot pinchers. Even when their 
bodies were half consumed by the fire, their members broken, 
and the skin torn from their skulls, was hanging about their 
shoulders, they exhorted the assistants to become converts to 
their doctrine. Never had any sect shown such extraordinary 
constancy in persecutions ; thus, the admiration which their 
courage inspired, drew a great number of Catholics and Lu- 
therans into their ranks. If the excellency of a religion 
could be proved by the testimony and number of its martyrs, 
as the Catholic priests maintain, the sect of the Anabaptists 
would, doubtless, be superior to any other, since it had, in less 
than a year, more than a hundred and fifty thousand martyrs, 
which is more than the martyrologists count during the long 
persecutions of the Pagan emperors." Here, then, is the au- 
thority of a learned Catholic writer. [Time Expired.] 



DR. LUCAS' FOURTH REPLY. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen : My friend certainly was very considerably ex- 
cited during the speech that you have just heard, and one 
would suppose that he was a little out of humor. There is 
certainly something that has taken possession of the gentle- 
man when he can get down to talking about " Africans," 
and the " weakest Africans/' and so on. It may be possible 
I am rather dark complected, and my appearance may have 
suggested the thing to him. I don't know ; but I recollect 
he told me, in Blandinville, his mother said he was a very 
pretty and handsome boy. Well, he is not to blame, is he ? 
He is a very pretty boy. He has held his own, has he not? 
Now, just look at him; don't you think he is pretty? 
[Laughter.] He is certainly very handsome. No doubt, if 
his mother were here she might say, " Well, my son, you 
were the prettiest boy I ever saw, and you are certainly hand- 
some and beautiful yet." However, some of you may say, 
he may have been a pretty boy. As the women generally 
say, " pretty boys make very ugly men." They might look 
at it in that light, that he had changed, and verified the 
truth of that statement. 

Well, he says, I have admitted a succession, and denied it. 
I said, for the sake of argument, as it was not necessary to 
establish a succession, or to prove a succession, in order to 
identify the church, as Benedict says ; and, in order that you 
may have that matter before your minds, I will read again 
what Benedict says, as he is a Baptist authority. He says : 



346 (Baptist Church Claims. 

(t I shall not attempt to trace a continuous line of churches, 
as we can for a few centuries (51st page) past in Europe and 
America. That is a kind of succession to which we have 
never laid claim, and, of course, we make no effort to prove it. 
We place no kind of reliance on this kind of testimony to es- 
tablish the soundness of our faith, or the validity of our 
administration." That is what Benedict says upon that 
subject. 

My friend says some one told him, at Blandinville, that I 
was the only one qualified, in all the country, to meet the 
great giant from Lexington. Well, I do not know what any " 
one may have told him there in regard to that matter. I am 
very certain if any one intimated anything of the kind to the 
gentleman, that he claimed more for me than I ever claimed 
for myself ; that is, so far as personal superiority on my own 
part is concerned. I have never made any claim of that kind. 
But he says he w T aited, still he waited some time, when I was 
confined to my room, sick in my bed, and not able to be up 
for days. He waited, in consequence, as I am credibly in- 
formed, by some of our brethren giving him five dollars per 
day, for several days, to wait. That is why he waited, ac- 
cording to my information. They hired him to wait, when I 
w T as sick in bed, I should not have referred to this matter at 
all, had not the gentleman referred to it in the way in which 
he did. He talked about waiting such a long time, when he 
was hired to wait, at least a part of the time, and that by my 
brethren, to the tune of five dollars a day. 

He speaks of Mr. Campbell and his associates being ex- 
cluded from the Baptist church. I simply deny that they 
were excluded from the Baptists, and challenge the gentleman 
to prove it. 

But he wants to know in regard to the head of his church. 
Well, I say most positively that Jesus Christ is not its head. 
Now, it is for the gentleman to prove his proposition, that Je- 



(Dr. Lucas' Fourth (Reply. 347 

sus is the head of the Baptist church. I say, in the days of 
Jesus, and for hundreds of years after Jesus established his 
church, for hundreds of years there was no such thing in his- 
tory, or anywhere else, as the Baptist church, and I challenge 
him to prove that Jesus Christ is the head of the Baptist 
church. I deny it. Let him prove it. 

We proceed to notice his argument in regard to the martyr 
church. I call your attention again to this passage, or these 
passages, to which reference has been made. The argument, 
as I understood the gentleman, in regard to the 2d of Acts 
was, that the verbs could not have the same nominative or 
subject, because the verb repent was of the second person, 
plural number, and that the verb baptisthato is in the third 
person and singular number ; both verbs are in the impera- 
tive, the one plural, and the other singular ; one of the sec- 
ond person, and the other of the third. Now, we have fur- 
nished cases to show that very frequently, not only among the 
classics, but in the New Testament Scriptures, and I might 
furnish others, where we have verbs plural in number, of the 
second person, imperative, and verbs of the third person, 
singular number, and imperative, where those verbs have the 
same subject. I gave you the verbs in the 14th chapter, but 
he states that the verbs I gave you are not found in the verse 
I mentioned. I just differ again with the gentleman. I say 
they are, every one of them,* The first passage, 1st Corinth- 
ians xiv. 37 — every one of them I gave is found right there 
in that passage, and not only so, but precisely as I gave it ; 
and in the 13th verse of the 16th chapter, we have the other 
verbs we gave as in that verse, and we state that the two first 
were in the second person, plural number, and imperative ; 
that the third verb presented in the passage was of the third 
person plural imperative ; and that ginestho, the last one 
mentioned in the passage, was of the third person singular 
imperative. Now, I made this statement, that it is not neces- 

* I made a mistake in the verses. It is 1st Cor. xiv. 39, 40; and 1st Cor. xvi. 13. 
—J. It. Lucas. 



348 (Baptist Church Claims. 

sary for us to talk all night in regard to this question, for it 
can be settled. I say, in regard to the verbs in these passages, 
that they have the same subject — those verbs of the second per- 
son, and of the third person. We say, they have the same sub- 
ject, and I am perfectly willing to leave the issue of that mat- 
ter to scholars. Consequently, we will leave the matter there 
for the present, and let scholars decide upon the question for 
themselves. It is just as I have stated. He says of this second 
passage that there is no verb of the third person, and conse- 
quently is neither in the second passage or in the first. We 
want to have the issue clearly understood. The statement is, 
that in the first, that one of the verbs I used is not in the 
passage, and that we have not either second person plural im- 
perative, or third person singular imperative ; that is, in re- 
gard to the first passage. The first statement was this, that 
there is but one verb there. And, then, in the second passage, 
that they are all of the same person and number, and impera- 
tive, in the second passage. That is his statement. Now, I 
say the gentleman is mistaken ; and I am willing to leave it 
to scholars to decide who is correct upon the subject, and for 
the present, therefore, we will leave it. 

He says the Baptist church is the martyr church. What 
does he mean by that ? Does he mean that the Baptist 
church .is the only church where any of its members have 
suffered martyrdom ! Does he not know that there are num- 
bers of churches that have suffered persecution, where their 
members have shown their fidelity to their organization, and 
the sincerity of their hearts in regard to their position relig- 
iously, by sealing that sincerity with their blood ? Does he 
not know this ? And if it proves anything in favor of the 
Baptist church, it proves as much with regard to any other 
church that has had its history marked by the blood of its 
martyrs ; and, consequently, instead of proving that the Bap- 
tist church is the church of Christ, he simply proves, if the 



(Dr. Lucas' Fourth (Reply. 349 

argument is worth anything, that there are several churches 
of Jesus Christ. 

He speaks about the Baptist church again. Well, I simply 
state that I thought I had disposed of that matter. These Par- 
ticular Baptists, and General Baptists, and Old Connection and 
New Connection and Seventh-Day Baptists, are separate or- 
ganizations, and they have independent associations, and they 
do not fraternize with each other — they do not enter into com- 
munion or fellowship in a church relation with each other. 
But he told you that Jesus Christ is the head of the Baptist 
church. I ask you, did he prove it ? Did he prove that Jesus 
Christ is the head of the Baptist church ? He made his 
statement, and he left the matter with you, and we must re- 
ceive it upon his statement. Well, he may be a very good 
man ; he may know a great deal ; he may be a very beautiful 
man, and all that kind of thing, and yet his testimony we 
receive not in a case of this kind. We want other testimony 
than that of friend Ray. He is an interested witness, an ex 
parte witness in this case, and we want higher authority. We 
state again, that in the days of Jesus Christ, and for hundreds 
of years, history is as silent as the night of the grave with re- 
gard to the Baptist church. There was no such thing as the 
Baptist church. History does not declare the existence for 
hundreds of years of such a church. Yet, the church that 
Jesus established was the Baptist church, and Jesus its head. 
So says my friend. 

We have presented arguments to show that his position 
with regard to the foundation of his church is opposed to the 
Bible, that it is not the Bible foundation. We deny his posi- 
tion with regard to Jesus being the head of his church, and 
we ask you, has he given you a scintilla of evidence in favor of 
the affirmation ? He has not, and he can not. We have pre- 
sented certain arguments against the claims of the gentleman's 
church, while we have tried to notice those presented by him, 



350 (Baptist Church Claims 

as succession, the foundation of his church, the head of his 
church, and the martyrs. We have shown you that there is 
no conclusive evidence in regard to his proposition from those 
sources, which verify the truth of his statement. We have 
submitted a number of arguments, and now add a fourth 
against the claims of the gentleman's church. We state that 
their theory of man's moral nature is wrong, and consequently 
the Baptist church founded upon that theory is wrong. What 
is the theory with regard to man's moral nature ? Mr. Jeter, 
and Mr. Williams, and the gentleman's church as a body 
affirm that man is totally depraved — that he is corrupt in 
every faculty of his soul and member of his body, so that by 
virtue of his inherited corruption he can not think a good 
thought, he can not do a good deed ; that he is opposed to all 
good and prone to all evil, and that continually; that he can 
not, without the miraculous influence and energy of the Holy 
Spirit brought to bear upon him, come to Jesus the Christ, 
the Son of the living God. It is not simply the operation of 
the Spirit through the word of God, but being thus corrupt 
man is so destitute of all power and of all ability as that it 
takes the supernatural influence and power of the Holy Spirit 
in order to enable him to come. We state, if this theory be 
correct, then the conversion of the sinner is as great a miracle 
as ever has been performed since creation. Since the morning 
stars sang together and the sons of God shouted for joy, no 
greater miracle has been performed than the conversion of 
every sinner, for it requires the supernatural operation of the 
Spirit in order to convert him and enable him to come to the 
Saviour. When we come to investigate the word of God, I 
ask you, what is the truth upon this question. Jesus looked 
(as recorded in Matt, xxiii.) upon Jerusalem, the once highly 
favored city, where the Shekinah had often appeared, where 
the glory of God had been manifested, through the Jewish high 
priests, in that mighty temple erected in honor of the God of 



(Dr. Lucas' Fourth (Reply. 351 

Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. What does the Saviour 
say? What were the feelings of his great heart, as he looked up- 
on Jerusalem ? He exclaims : "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou 
that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent un- 
to thee, how often would I have gathered thy children togeth- 
er, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and 
ye would not." And, again, in Matthew's record xi. 28, Jesus 
stands before the people and says: "Come unto me, all ye 
that labor, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me ; for I am meek and 
lowly in heart : and ye shall find rest unto your souls." The 
Saviour seems to talk as though they had power to come, and 
the reason why they did not enjoy this blessedness and this 
honor, was not because they could not come to him, but be- 
cause they would not. Again, the Saviour says in the 5th 
chapter of John? "You will not," not that "you cannot," 
"You will not come to me, that you might have life." This is 
the language of the Saviour. He throws the responsibility 
upon the individual himself — he recognizes his power and his 
ability to come, and says the reason why he does not enjoy 
life is because he will not come. In the last chapter of the 
Eevelation made to John, the beloved disciple, w T hile upon 
the Isle of Patmos, we have these words presented : ' ' And the 
Spirit and the bride say, come. And let him that heareth 
say, come. And let him that is athirst, come. And whoso- 
ever will, let him take the water of life freely." I ask you, 
what is the force of all his declarations ? I ask you, is it not 
to impress the mind that the reason why you are not in the 
enjoyment of the blessedness here presented to your view is 
that you will not come, and submit to the terms upon which 
this blessedness is offered, and not because you can not come. 
We say, therefore, that the gentleman's church is not the 
church of Jesus Christ, because it is wrong in this particular 
as in the others that have already been mentioned. It stands 



352 (Baptist Church Claims. 

opposed to the teaching of the word of God, wrong in theory, 
and consequently wrong in practice, and in the plan of con- 
version founded upon that theory. 

We not only state that his church is wrong in regard to 
its theory of man's moral nature, by which man is held to 
be thus corrupt, thus depraved, totally and entirely, in every 
faculty of the soul and every member of the body ; but we 
submit, in connection, the fifth argument— wrong in the 
theory and practice of conversion. They are wrong ; first, as 
already indicated, they are wrong in the operations of the 
Holy Spirit, in conversion, teaching that it is immediate ; that 
it is supernatural in its nature and character, and that this 
power is exerted immediately upon the sinner's heart, inde- 
pendently of the word of God. But we state, secondly, in re- 
gard to their theory of the plan of conversion. They are not 
only wrong upon the subject of the Spirit's operations, but 
they are wrong on the subject of justification by faith. With 
my friend it is faith alone — that is the doctrine of his church 
— faith alone, faith only. Well, the word of God teaches as 
clearly as language can teach, that faith alone is dead, dead 
as the body without the spirit is dead ; that faith alone is not 
the faith by which we are justified, and by which we are 
brought into fellowship and in communion with God, our 
Heavenly Father. We have quoted a number of passages in 
your hearing, in order to demonstrate this fact. We stated 
that we are said not to be saved by faith only, but it is 
afiirmed that in obeying the form of doctrine delivered, that 
we are made free from sin, and become servants of righteous- 
ness, and the apostle James, in his first chapter of his letter 
and the 25th verse of the chapter, says: " But whoso looketh 
into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being 
not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall 
be blessed in his deed." Here we have the perfect law of 
liberty presented ; and it is called the perfect law of liberty, 



(Dr. Lucas' Fourth (Reply. 353 

because men are liberated and made free from sin, when they 
properly submit to the requirements of this perfect law of 
liberty ; and whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, 
and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a 
doer of the w T ork, this man shall be blessed in his deed. He 
shall be blessed with that liberty presented in this perfect law. 
We have not only this passage, but we call your attention to 
the declaration made by the apostle Peter, as found in the 22d 
verse of the 1st chapter of his letter. Here we have it af- 
firmed : " Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the 
truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, 
see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently." They 
purified their souls, according to Peter, in obeying the truth 
through the Spirit. This is the declaration of the apostle 
Peter. The gentleman will concede that this purification is 
necessary to salvation and pardon, and if they enjoy this purifi- 
cation, by obeying the truth through the Spirit, then more 
than simple faith is required to the enjoyment of the blessing 
here presented, and we state that this obedience to the truth 
is obedience to the gospel, to the Son of God, and in proof of 
the fact, we simply follow the apostle further in what he here 
presents. In the 24th verse of the same chapter to the close. 
What is called " truth" in the 22d v., he calls in the 24th v., 
" being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorrup- 
tible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." 
However, we read on, " Being born again, not of corruptible 
seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth 
and abideth forever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory 
of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth and the 
flower thereof falleth away : But the word of the Lord en- 
dureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is 
preached unto you." The truth is the word, the word is the 
gospel, and this is the word which by the gospel is preached 
unto you. [Time Expired.] 



ELDER RAY'S FIFTH ADDRESS. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen : While it is on my mind, I wish to call your at- 
tention to the last part of my friend's argument. He referred 
to Romans vi. 17 — that when they obeyed from the heart that 
form of doctrine delivered unto them, they were made free 
from this law of sin and death ; and he said this obedience, or 
obeying the gospel, was not simply faith, or faith only, but faith 
and something else. 

I wish you to mark the gentleman's doctrine, that where 
obeying from the heart is mentioned in the Bible, the Disciples 
imagine that baptism is understood. That is just what he is 
aiming at ; and I wish your attention to some Scriptures bear- 
ing upon that subject — Romans x. 16, 17 : " But they have 
not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath 
believed our report ? So then faith cometh by hearing, and 
hearing by the word of God." Thus it appears that Paul un- 
derstood by obeying the gospel, believing the gospel report ; so 
that obedience from the heart is the exercise of faith in 
Christ, which results in external obedience as the fruits of 
righteousness. It is said in the letter to the Ephesians ii. 
10 : We are " created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which 
God hath before ordained that we should walk in them/' 
Thus we are saved by grace, not of works, but by grace ; not 
of yourselves ; it is the gift of God. Then, again, to show 
that he is mistaken in regard to what is meant by obeying the 
gospel, we turn to 2d Thessalonians i. 7-10: "The Lord 
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 



Elder (Ray's Fifth Address, 355 

in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, 
and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ : Who 
shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the pres- 
ence of the Lord, and from the glory of his pow T er ; When 
he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired 
in all them that believe (because our testimony among you 
was believed) in that day." This proves, positively, that all 
who fail to believe the gospel will be punished with everlasting 
destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of 
his power. Will the gentleman affirm that all the Anabap- 
tists are thus to be punished with everlasting destruction t If his 
argument is worth anything, then all the unimmersed must go 
down to the devil's hell ! and this is the legitimate conclusion 
from the gentleman's doctrine ; it is the doctrine of eternal 
damnation of all the unimmersed. That is where he places 
himself before this enlightened audience. 

But, my notes of his speech. I thought my worthy friend 
could get along in this discussion without attempting to im- 
pugn my motives, and make me out a poor, driveling — . I 
was going to use a hard word — not against him, but myself. 
He attempts to impugn my motives, accusing me of pecuni- 
ary motives, as though I had been paid by contract to wait 
for him, being hired by his brethren. I will simply read, 
without comment, some papers on that subject, perhaps to- 
morrow evening, and then leave the Dr. in his glory. But I 
will tell you the reason why he noticed this, in my judgment, 
and that is, because he did not have anything else to say. He 
w T as out of material just at that point. 

I deny, said he, that we were excluded from the Baptists. 
Well, he denies a great many things ; but, then, he ought 
certainly to bring more proof on some points. On page 97 
of Jeter's work on Campbellism we have a report of the 
learned and able committee appointed by the Dover Associ- 
ation, in regard to Mr. Campbell's disciples and their doc- 



356 (Baptist Church Claims. 

trines, in which they say : " We, therefore, the assembled 
ministers and delegates of the Dover Association, after much 
prayerful deliberation, do hereby affectionately recommend to 
the churches in our connection to separate from their com- 
munion all such persons as are promoting controversy and 
discord under the specious name of 'Reformers.' That the 
line of distinction may be clearly drawn, so that all who are 
concerned may understand it, we feel it our duty to declare, 
that whereas Peter Ainslie, John Du Val, Matthew W. Web- 
ber, Thomas H. Henley, John Richards, and Dudley Atkin- 
son, ministers within the bounds of this Association, have vol- 
untarily assumed the name of ' Reformers/ in its party appli- 
cation, by attending a meeting publicly advertised for that 
party, and communing with and otherwise promoting the 
views of the members of that party, who have been separated 
from the fellowship and communion of the regular Baptist 
churches; therefore 

"Resolved, That this Association can not consistently and 
conscientiously receive them, nor any other ministers main- 
taining their views, as members of their body ; nor can they 
in the future act in concert with any church or churches that 
may encourage or countenance their ministers." 

On page 100 of Jeter on Campbellism, Mr. Campbell com- 
plains of their exclusion thus : " How will they answer to 
the Lord for casting out of his church on earth (as they call 
the Dover Association) those whom they have every reason 
to think are esteemed as much the children of God as them- 
selves ?" They did not call the Dover Association a church. 
Mr. Campbell was mistaken upon that point; but they •ad- 
vised the churches to cast the Disciples out, and they did do it ; 
they did it, and I have here the testimony. But I do not 
wish to waste my time reading it. The gentleman did not 
deny it in his proposition, and now he comes up and denies 
it when I am in the affirmative. Previous to this, when I 



Elder (Ray's Fifth Address, 357 

brought the matter up, he has been as silent as the grave, — 
there was no voice of denial ; but now, when I am in the af- 
firmative, and have something else to do, he gets up and de- 
nies it. He ought to have denied it at the right time. 

Well, then, he emphatically denies the headship of the 
Baptist church ; but now it does behoove him to show who 
else set it up, and when he does that he has sustained his de- 
nial. Let him find the man. When I say a denomination has 
been set up by human authority, I feel under obligations to 
find and introduce the proof; I must name the man, and tell 
the date of its organization. 

Well, now, I answer that argument (?) about my appear- 
ance, my looks and all that, by just saying that I surmise 
the Dr. brought this out because he wished to advertise his 
own beauty ! Well, I never professed to be very handsome, 
and I do not believe that will prove or disprove the proposi- 
tion. 

But, the Dr. says, the Baptists have the wrong theory of 
conversion. I wish to know who of his church believes it, 
because they receive the converts from Baptists without re- 
quiring anything more of them. Suppose I desired to get 
into his church; well, I come forward and say, "Dr. Lucas, 
I wish to unite with you. I give you my hand ; will you take 
me?" "Brethren," the Dr. would say, ''let us sing a song; 
let us give him the right hand of fellowship." That is all ; 
and yet he is talking before this people to make them believe 
he does not think our conversion is right ! while his folks will 
even receive those who have been excluded from Baptist fel- 
lowship, upon their Baptist conversion ; therefore, his argu- 
ment falls to the ground, and his own people do not believe a 
word of it. All the leaders of his denomination, the first that 
had their baptism — Mr. Campbell at the head — had their bap- 
tism from the Baptists, and that before they understood what 
they now call the. design of baptism. 



358 (Baptist Church Claims. 

Again, the Dr. says, that we have wrong notions of man's 
moral nature as regards human depravity. I believe I will 
read you a little from the Scriptures upon this subject; 
Psalms li. 5 : "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity ; and in sin 
did my mother conceive me." I suppose that David had ref- 
erence to his moral nature. Then, again, Ps. lviii. commencing 
at the 2d verse : "Yea, in heart you work wickedness. You 
weigh the violence of your hands in the earth. The wicked 
are estranged from the womb ; they go astray as soon as they 
be born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a 
serpent ; they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear; 
which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming 
never so wisely. v He compares man's moral nature to the deaf 
adder. You may take the adder and nurse it, but it still has 
the poison, though it is not developed. The young adder has 
that undeveloped poison in his composition, and I do not care 
how you educate him, you may take him to your parlor and 
play with him, and do your best with him, but when he comes 
to be a full grown adder he will have the snakish disposition 
in spite of his education. That is the illustration the psalm- 
ist gives to illustrate man's moral condition, and yet the Dr. 
thinks by nature men are pure and holy ! 

Again, we refer you to another illustration, Ezekiel xxxvii. 
When the Lord carried Ezekiel into the midst of the valley of 
dry bones (I am going to quote this from memory), "And he 
said unto me, Son of Man, can these bones live ?" — this val- 
ley of dead men's bones. The Dr. would have said "No, not a 
word of it." But Ezekiel said : " O Lord God, thou knowest." 
And the Lord tells him to prophesy to the dry bones, and 
Ezekiel commenced preaching, and suddenly he heard a noise 
and a shaking in the valley, and the bones came together, skin 
and flesh covered the bones, and there was a great army of 
men without life ; and then he was commanded to prophesy 
to the wind and say : "O ye breath, come and breathe upon 



Elder (Ray's Fifth Address. 359 

these slain that they may live ;" and then, when God caused 
the wind to breathe or blow upon them, there stood up an 
exceeding great army. We find in the 11th verse the appli- 
cation is made: "Then he said unto me: Son of man, these 
bones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say, our 
bones are dried, and our hope is lost ; we are cut off from our 
parts." If Israel was compared to the valley of dry bones, I 
ask, what may be said of the fearful situation of men in their 
depravity. I might refer, while upon this point, to Acts xvi. 
14 : "It is said that a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of 
purple, of the city of Thyatira, w T hich worshipped God, heard 
us, whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the 
things which were spoken of Paul. v Here we have referred 
to that work of the Holy Spirit that my friend's church de- 
nies. "Wlwse heart the Lord opened" Now, turn to Eph. i. 
19 : "And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us- 
ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty 
power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from 
the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly 
places" Then, again, in Eph. ii. 1 : "And you hath he quick- 
ened, who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein, in times 
past, ye walked according to the course of this world, 
according to the prince of the power of the air, the 
spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience : 
Among whom, also, we all had our conversation in times past, 
in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and 
of the mind ; and were by nature the children of wrath, even 
as others." This proves that they were morally dead, and 
that we even believe according to the workings of (lie mighty 
power which God brought to bear when he raised Jesus from the 
dead. We are not wrong in drawing the Bible pictures. No, 
dear friends, men in a state of nature are said to be like the 
whited sepulchre : "the poison of asps is under their lips ; 
they have not known the way of peace, even the best of men, 



360 (Baptist Church Claims. 

outwardly, while beautiful without, are inwardly full of cor- 
ruption and the rottenness of dead men's bones." O ! the sad 
work of sin ; man is lost, and by nature without God, and 
without hope in the world. He is unable to save himself ; he 
must cry to Jesus for salvation ; nevertheless, when the gos- 
pel comes to him, he is accountable. All these beautiful pas- 
sages we indorse fully, wherein Jesus said: "O Jerusalem, 
Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and sfconest them ;" 
and "ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life." 
They can not come except the Father draws them ; but when 
they make the effort they have the power, so that every man 
is accountable, and can come by the aid of the Holy Spirit. 
So, then, it is by the aid of God he comes. 

Again, I wish to say a little more in regard to succession, 
and the question of the perpetuity of the church. Lange, in 
his Commentary on 16th chapter of Matthew, 18th verse, 
says : "For a long time it seemed as if the church of Christ 
would become the prey of this destroying hades. But its 
gates shall not ultimately prevail — they shall be taken ; and 
Christ will overcome and abolish the kingdom of death in 
his church. Of course the passage also implies conflict with 
the kingdom of evil, and victory over it; but its leading 
thought is the triumph of life over death, of 'the kingdom of 
the resurrection over the usurped reign of the kingdom of 



Again, the martyr church. The gentleman referred to the 
fact, that other, denominations had suffered. But they did 
not suffer through that long reign of Anti-christ as the Bap- 
tists have. Some of those that came out from the church 
of Borne fought each other, and suffered more or less ; and 
they persecuted others in their turn, when they had the 
pow T er; but the Baptists are the only denomination having an 
ancient existence, that has suffered persecution for dreary ages and 
have never retaliated by persecuting others. I make this stale- 



Elder (Ray's Fifth Address, 361 

ment, that the true church must be the martyr church — one 
that has furnished martyrs— witnesses who have died for the 
cause of Christ. I do not make this the only characteristic, 
but it is one of the characteristics ; and when we find a 
church that has furnished no martyrs, it, we know, is not the 
true church of Christ. When we find a church that has fur- 
nished martyrs for its principles alone, and has no other points 
of identity, we know that it is not the true church of Christ ; 
but when we find a church with the other characteristics, that 
has furnished the martyrs in the cause of Christ, that one we 
know to be the true church. 

I want your attention now for one moment to the testi- 
mony of Theodore Beza, successor of Calvin, one of the ablest 
men of the sixteenth century. I quote from Jones' Church 
History, p. 264: "The Waldenses, time out of mind, have 
opposed the abuses of the church of Rome and have been per- 
secuted after such a manner, not by the sword of the word of 
God, but by every species of cruelty, added to a million of 
calumnies and false accusations, that they have been com- 
pelled to disperse themselves wherever they could, wandering 
through the deserts like wild beasts. The Lord, nevertheless, 
has so preserved .the residue of them, that, notwithstanding 
the rage of the whole world, they still inhabit three countries, 
at a great distance from each other, viz. : Calabria, Bohemia, 
Piedmont, and the countries adjoining, where they dispersed 
themselves from the quarters of Provence about 270 years 
ago. And, as to their religion, they never adhered to papal 
superstitions, for which they have been continually harassed 
by the bishops and inquisitors abusing the arm of secular jus- 
tice, so that their continuance to the present time is evidently 
miraculous." 

Along the dreary ages of the past the Baptist church has 
come through the storms of persecution, as I have read from 
the History of the Popes here, where one hundred and fifty 



362 (Baptist Church Claims. 

thousand fell beneath the fiendish power of persecution ; and 
that from the Protestants in the times of the Reformation of 
the sixteenth century, I might call your attention to the tes- 
timony of Dr. Allix, in regard to these ancient Waldenses. 
He says : "Wherefore that I may once for all clear this matter, 
I say, first, that it is absolutely false that these churches were 
ever founded by Peter Waldo. Let them show us any author 
of that time who asserts Peter Waldo ever preached in the 
diocese of Italy, or that he founded any church there. Let 
him produce any sure tradition of that people referring the 
origin of their churches to Peter Waldo. Those who wrote at 
that time do not state anything like this, any more than they 
who lived after. Wherefore we must needs conclude it is a 
pure forgery to look on Waldo as the person who first brought 
the Reformation into Italy we now find there. I own, indeed, 
that Peter Waldo's taking care to have the Holy Scriptures 
translated into the vulgar tongue, the churches of Italy reaped 
much benefit from that version, whereof we have to this 
day some old copies in the library of the University of Cam- 
bridge. But this does not, in the least, infer that Waldo 
ought to be considered the founder of them." 

I say, further, by the acknowledgment of the enemies 
themselves of the Waldenses, it is absolutely false that these 
churches claimed an origin from Peter Waldo. The Wal- 
denses, instead of claiming to be a reformation from Popery,- 
claim to be the bride of Christ which fled into the wilderness 
from the face of the dragon. I need not quote further on 
this subject. 

Just at this point I have one more testimony from the cele- 
brated historian Geisler, regarding the Novatians, vol. 1, p. 
163 : " The Presbyter Novatian, at Rome, was dissatisfied at the 
choice of the Bishop Cornelius, A. D. 251, on account of his 
lenity toward the Lapsi. In the controversy which now en- 
sued, Novatian, chiefly supported by the presbyter Novatus, 



Elder (kay's Fifth Address. 363 

of Carthage, returned to the old principle, that those who 
have once fallen from the faith could in no case be received 
again. The church being divided by this schism, Novatian 
was chosen bishop by the one party in opposition to Corne- 
lius. Though the other bishops, and especially Cyprian, at 
Carthage, and Dyonisius at Alexandria, were on the side of 
Cornelius, great numbers in all parts joined the stricter party." 
I might quote a great many other witnesses on this subject. 
I remark again, that the true church of Christ is the martyr 
church, and the Baptists have the honor of being the martyr 
church through the dark ages. This can not be consistently 
denied. I might refer to some of their sufferings in America. 
I will simply mention the conclusion of a speech that was de- 
livered by one Mr. Wells, who belonged to the Puritan 
churches, so-called, of the New England States, when the 
Baptists were fined, in order to pay for the building of a meet- 
ing house for the Pedobaptists and support their preacher, who, 
because of their poverty, were unable to pay, and were driven 
into the wilderness, with mothers and children weeping ; when 
Mr. Wells said, among other things, "that the Baptists, for re- 
fusing to pay an orthodox minister, should be cut in pound pieces 
and boiled for their fat to grease the deviVs carriage" This is 
found in the minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association, 
and I will state to my friend that I have the 163d annual 
minutes of this association of Baptists, with whom we stand 
identified, numbering about 20,000 members. It has contin- 
ued about 165 years as one of the associations of the denom- 
ination. 

Again, I quote from Mosheim's Church History, p. 505 : 
"There were certain sects and doctors, against whom the zeal, 
vigilance and severity of Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists 
were united, and opposing whose settlement and progress 
these three communions, forgetting their dissensions, joined 
their most vigorous counsels and endeavors. The objects of 



364 (Baptist Church Claims. 

their common aversion were the Anabaptists, and those who 
denied the divinity of Christ and a trinity of persons in the 
Godhead." I might refer you to-night to the sufferings of our 
brethren in Virginia, where thirty Baptist ministers, before 
the Kevolutionary War, were imprisoned in the Old Dominion 
simply for preaching the gospel. James Ireland was seized by 
the throat while holding a protracted meeting in a grove, 
and hurried away to prison ; and when he wrote from Cul- 
pepper prison, he said: "my palace in Culpepper." And his 
enemies tried to kill him in prison ; they attempted to suffo- 
cate him with burning brimstone, to blow him up with gun- 
powder, and in several ways to destroy him, but God pre- 
served his life. 

Old Brother Weatherford while in prison would hold his 
protracted meetings, and raise his stentorian voice in the dun- 
geon, so that the people outside could have the gospel of sal- 
vation. I mention this to show that before the revolutionary 
struggle we had to suffer in our own land. 

And there was Brother Holmes, who w 7 as tied to a stake and 
his back laid bare, and with the cruel lash he was whipped 
until he was not able to walk or stand. He had to bow down 
upon his knees to compose himself to sleep. Why ? JBecaitse 
he preached the gospel of the Son of God. One of the most elo- 
quent efforts of the great statesman Patrick Henry, was when 
he volunteered his services to go sixty miles to defend three 
Baptist preachers, who were arrested and tried on the solemn 
charge of "preaching the gospel of the Son of God," and that 
mighty man defended those men of God. [Time Expired.] 



! 



DR. LUCAS' FIFTH REPLY. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen — So far as the sufferings of the Baptists are con- 
cerned, I certainly concede that many of them have suffered, 
and we are disposed to admit all that as true ; so far as Ave 
know, we are disposed to admit the truth connected with 
their history and their sufferings, but then the point is this — 
[At this point several persons rose to leave the room.] 

Dr. Lucas — " Just mark my time till they are gone out. 
j If there are any others of our Baptist friends who think 
they can not stand the firing, why we will cordially excuse 
them." 

Elder Ray — " They went out when I commenced speaking 
just the same. I don't suppose that those are Baptists that 
are going out. I suppose it is because they are tired." 

President Cook — " Those that have gone out, as far as I 
I know, are not members of any church." 

Dr. Lucas — "We will now proceed." I desire your at- 
, tention to a point, if it bears upon the question at all, the 
argument that the martyr church constitutes the church of 
Christ ; then there must be but one martyr church. But 
when we come to notice history, we find that numbers of 
churches have had their martyrs by hundreds and by thou- 
' sands, and, consequently, it proves just as much for one 
church as for the other ; and it proves, therefore, a number 
of churches is the church, or churches of Christ, and not this 
or that particular church. Hence, the argument fails. 

But, my friend comes to succession again. He finds he 



366 • (Baptist Church Claims. 

can get along a great deal better on succession when he can 
quote from this, that, and the other book, than to give us an 
exposition of Dr. Kay's power and ability in the defense of 
his proposition. He gets along better reading, than he does 
really in talking, and, hence, he goes back to books again. 
Well, if he wants to go on in that way, we will just merely 
respond in the language of his Baptist brethren, that none 
need the succession for which he contends, but those who 
found their church upon superstition and tradition, and not 
on the word of God. We will just let Brother Benedict and 
Brother Brown, author of the Encyclopedia, a Baptist his- 
torian, reply to the gentleman every time he tries to make 
this point. They said that no church but that church that 
would labor to found itself, or establish itself, upon tradition, 
and not on the word of God, needs this succession, and we 
leave it. 

But he refers to Komans vi. 17, 18, where we quoted 
the passage, that though "ye were the servants of sin, but ye 
have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was 
delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became 
the servants of righteousness," and have your fruit unto 
holiness, and in the end everlasting life. He says, the Dr. 
certainly means Baptism there. Well, I certainly did not say 
a word about it, but I did say that when they obeyed from 
the heart, the form of doctrine delivered to them, that Paul 
says they were made free from sin ; and I did say, also, that 
"whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and contin- 
ueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer 
of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed," and shall 
enjoy the liberty or the benefits flowing from obedience to 
this law of liberty. He shall enjoy the liberty and freedom 
there promised. I did say that "seeing ye have purified 
your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto 
unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another 






(Dr. Lucas' Fifth (Reply. 367 

with a pure heart fervently : Being born again, not of corrupt- 
ible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which 
liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all 
the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, 
and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the 
Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the 
gospel is preached unto you." I did say that, and said that 
Peter calls the truth the word, and the word the gospel; 
which is the w r ord, which, by the gospel, is preached unto 
you ; and when they obeyed the gospel, they are purified in 
soul according to the statement of the apostle. " Purify your 
souls in obeying the truth," and this obedience, therefore, is 
necessary, and this purification is necessary in order to the 
enjoyment of the freedom from sin. I did say that, and I 
quoted from the w r ord of God what the apostles have said 
on that subject. 

But, again: "The Association expelled the Disciples from 
the Baptists." I will still deny that assertion. I deny that 
the Baptist church expelled Alexander Campbell, and those 
associated with him from the Baptist church. And my friend 
will not stand here and say that the Association had any 
authority to expel anybody, either a member or a church. 
I will state that Mr. Campbell, and those connected with 
him, were not connected w 7 ith the Dover Association at the 
time, and, so far as I know, never were connected with that 
Association. At any rate, at the time that this committee 
reported, upon which there was a diversity of opinion at the 
time they reported upon the question, as read by my worthy 
friend, they were not connected with that Association. That 
Association had no authority to expel them. First, it had 
none to expel anybody. An Association has not this authority 
in the Baptist church, either to expel a member or a church 
from the church ; but, then, even grant that they had, these 
men referred to by my friend were not connected with that 



368 (Baptist Church Claims. 

Dover Association, and, consequently, if they had the power, 
they could not have expelled them, they not being connected 
with it. 

He talks about " joining." "Now," said he, "the Dr. has 
said that our theory upon conversion is wrong, but if I were 
to go and join his church he would say to the brethren, 'sing 
a song, and we will extend the hand of fellowship, and the 
conversion would be all right.'" Now, I will just reply to him, 
and, so far as this question is concerned, will pay him off in 
his own coin exactly. He says that we deny the Holy Spirit 
in conversion. Well, so far as that is concerned, I deny his 
view of it — this supernatural operation ; but I do not deny 
the influence and operation of the Spirit of God through the 
word of truth. We do not deny that; but we deny the 
supernatural and immediate operation and influence of the 
Spirit of God. We deny that theory of the Spirit's influence. 
He says we deny the operation of the Spirit. Well, you 
may find respectable members of the Christian church who 
reside in a community where we have no organization, and 
sometimes it occurs that these individuals have happened to 
settle in such places. Suppose there is a Baptist church in 
that locality, and they propose to join it ; now, I ask, what 
is the action of that church with these persons? " Oh," my 
friend says, "we deny the operation of the Holy Spirit in 
conversion." Well, brethren, these individuals are respect- 
able members of the church to which they belong. Shall we 
receive them in our fellowship, that is, the fellowship of the 
Baptist church? The brethren propose a vote, and they vote, 
"yes;" we will receive them. And they are voted in, as has 
been done in this place, and, also, in the congregation at 
Dover, a few miles in the country — just t&ke them in in that 
way. Now, then, if the gentleman's point is worth anything 
at all, we have simply paid him off in his own kind of change. 
They do that way, too ; take in those that he says deny the 



(Dr. Lucas' Fifth {Reply. 369 

operation of the Holy Spirit in conversion ; they take them 
in as they are — -just as they are. 

But the gentleman comes to the question of depravity. 
We have offered an argument against the gentleman 1 s church 
because it teaches that man is by inheritance totally depraved, 
corrupt in every faculty of the soul and member of his body, 
incapable of thinking a good thought, or doing a good deed ;, 
that he is opposed to all good, and prone to all evil ; and their 
theory of conversion is founded upon this idea of man's cor- 
ruption and depravity. Well, the gentleman tries to prove 
the doctrine — he tries to prove that man is just that corrupt ; 
but where does he find the truth of his statement ? He turns 
to the 51st psalm and the 5th verse: "Behold, I was shapen in 
iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Our first 
remark in regard to this passage is, that Dr. Adam Clarke, in 
his note on this text, says that the w r ord cholaleti, which we 
translate "shapen," means, more properly, there, "brought 
forth." That is his statement, whose scholarship is recognized 
and admitted by all. And therefore the psalmist is speaking 
of the state into which the individual was introduced. This 
was the point, then, presented by the psalmist, and proves 
nothing for the gentleman. And, secondly, we remark that 
the language is highly figurative, such as the psalmist was in 
the habit of using. In another psalm he is speaking of him- 
self, and when speaking says: "I am a worm, and no man" 
[Psalms xvii. 6] ; showing the highly figurative manner in 
which the psalmist speaks, the figurative manner adopt- 
ed by him in the presentation of this thought. But, again, 
you take Psalms lviii. 3, referred to by the gentleman : "The 
wicked are estranged from the womb ; they go astray as soon 
as they are born, speaking lies." As soon as they are bom they 
go astray, speaking lies. Now, I wonder if there is an individual 
in this audience that believes that the psalmist intends his 
language to be understood literally, that is, as soon as a child 



370 (Baptist Church Claims. 

is born it goes astray telling falsehoods ? Does anybody un- 
derstand that the psalmist is here speaking literally ? Does 
not every one know that the language of the psalmist here is 
highly figurative ? Who ever heard of an infant as soon as it 
was born speaking lies ? The psalmist would convey simply 
this thought, that very early in life a child engages in expres- 
sions that are not true, but are false, and is never supposed to 
teach, I presume, that the very moment the .child is born it 
begins to tell falsehoods. These passages are highly figura- 
tive, and, consequently, prove nothing for the gentleman. 
They prove nothing upon the point, and when you turn to the 
book of Genesis vi. you have it there stated: "God looked 
down and beheld the wickedness of men, that the wickedness 
of men had become great in the earth." On a little further, 
he says: "All flesh has corrupted its way;" — that this cor- 
ruption is the result of the action of the individual, and not 
transmitted by virtue of inheritance, by virtue of the connec- 
tion existing between the father and the child. "All flesh 
has corrupted its way," is the language of the word of God. 
But we find a number of passages on the subject of man's 
growing worse and worse. I ask, how it is possible for an in- 
dividual that is totally depraved, depraved entirely, in every 
faculty of his soul and member of his body — I repeat, how is 
it possible for a man thus corrupt to grow worse and worse ? 
I ask you, how can the thing be ? And I venture the assertion 
that if you were going to describe the depravity and corrup- 
tion of the devil himself, you could not do it in stronger terms 
than to say that he is totally corrupt in every faculty of the 
soul and member of the body. You could not make the lan- 
guage stronger if your life depended on it. Yet the doc- 
trine and theory of the gentleman says, that the innocent babe 
upon its mother's arm is by nature as corrupt as the devil him- 
self — that the innocent babe, that smiles so sweetly in its 
mother's face, is totally and entirely corrupt in every faculty 



tf)r. Lucas' Fifth (Reply. 371. 

of its soul and member of its body. That is the doctrine of 
total depravity. This is the doctrine that the gentleman's 
church contends for and founds its theory upon, of immediate 
operation of the spirit and the supernatural working of the 
Holy Spirit upon the sinner in order to his conversion. I say 
that the gentleman's church is wrong from this consideration 
in connection with the others that we have submitted for your 
consideration. He refers to the case of Lydia, whose heart 
the Lord opened. Now, there is no controversy as to whether 
the Lord entered Lydia's heart or not. There is no contro- 
versy here, but the question is, how did he do it ? The gen- 
tleman's theory says that he did it by the immediate, by the 
supernatural operation of the Spirit of God ; that I deny. 
The gentleman has made no progress by referring to this case, 
until he shows that the Lord by the immediate operation, by 
the supernatural operation of the Spirit of God opened the 
heart of Lydia ; but how ? The gentleman affirms a certain 
way, I deny it, now let him prove it, He says, no man can 
come to the Father except the Father draw him. That is 
not the question. How does God draw the sinner to him ? The 
question is not whether he does it. We admit he does it, and 
we say he can not come to God unless God draws him ; but 
we deny that it is by immediate and supernatural influence. 
The gentleman's theory affirms it in this way ; I deny it ; let 
him prove it. It is very easy to make an assertion or state- 
ment, but the gentleman is on the proving side now, let him 
prove it. He says, why did not I deny certain statements 
made in the former discussion ; why did I not deny them then, 
and not now? I was proving then, I was not on the denying 
side. I am on the denying side now, and he is on the proving 
side, and let him prove. While we are denying, we deny 
what we regard as untrue, and we think by the time we get 
through with the gentleman that we will prove a good deal 
against his theory and position. And now, w r hile the matter 



(Baptist Church Claims* 



is in my mind, I wish to call your attention to a point pre- 
sented in this Religious Encyclopedia in regard to the gentle- 
man's church; it is on history — religion and history. He 
says : "It has been asserted that the Baptists originated in 
Germany about the year 1522, at the beginning of the Ref- 
ormation. It is true that no denomination of Protestants can 
trace the origin of its present name further back than about 
the time of the Reformation." You can not trace the Baptist 
church further back than about the time of the Reformation, 
according to the statement of this Baptist authority. And 
yet the gentleman stands here and says that Jesus Christ 
established the Baptist church. 

Mr. Ray— Page? 

Mr. Lucas — Page 188. This is the declaration of this 
Baptist authority. Now, we state a little more upon that 
question. We propose to trace its connection back through 
the Mennonites and through the Waldenses ; and I will state 
that the Mennonites not only practiced baptism by immersion, 
but practiced baptism by pouring and sprinkling. Will the 
gentleman make this a link in his chain? And not only so, 
but the Waldenses, that he proposes to constitute another 
link in his chain, practiced both adult and infant baptism. 
Will he make them a link in the Baptist chain of succession ? 
I ask you to stop and think in regard to the gentleman's chain 
of succession — one link practicing immersion, sprinkling, and 
pouring, another link practicing adult and infant baptism. 
This is the chain unbroken of succession that the gentleman 
would present for your consideration and for your reception. 
You can not go beyond 1522 and find the existence, accord- 
ing to his own authority, of a Baptist church. And yet lie 
tells you it goes back to the days of Jesus Christ, and that 
Jesus established the church, and that the Baptist church 
was founded upon Jesus, and Jesus was its head. Were it 
not for adopting the language of the gentleman awhile ago, 



(Dr. Lucas' Fifth (Reply. 373 

I would say, I am ashamed of such quibbling and argumenta- 
tion. 

We now desire to state a third argument in connection 
with the theory of conversion. We argue that the gentle- 
man is wrong in his proposition ; thirdly, because the Baptists 
are wrong in their teaching with regard to repentance. My 
friend argues that repentance must, in the very nature of 
things, come before faith. The argument is founded upon 
the fact that repentance is mentioned before faith; there- 
fore, he contends that this is the order in which they exist. 
Well, I will give you a case to think upon, and try it accord- 
ing to this rule. In the 3d chapter of John, and the 5th verse, 
Jesus says: "Except a man be born of water and of the 
Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Nearly 
the entire religious world say that "born of water," is bap- 
tism. Now, then, I ask you, because the birth of the water, 
or baptism, is mentioned before the influence of the Spirit 
of God, does it necessarily follow that baptism comes first? 
that man is baptized before he is brought under the influence 
of the Holy Spirit ? If the gentleman founds his argument 
upon the order in the one case — because the one is mentioned 
before the other — to be consistent, he must do it in this case. 
And, then, he makes too much entirely of water, or baptism, 
for my brethren ; for we say, though you were to baptize a 
man ten thousand times, without the influence of the Spirit 
upon his heart, that it would be of no avail, that it would be 
of no value whatever. Ai}d yet the birth of water — of bap- 
tism — is mentioned first. We call your attention to one 
other passage, the 2d of Ephesians, and the closing part of 
that chapter. Here we have the apostle's language: "For 
ye are built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, 
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." The 
apostles are mentioned before the prophets, and the gentle- 
man says, the prophets here relate to the Old Testament 



374 (Baptist Church Claims. 

prophets — the prophets under the Jewish dispensation, and 
yet the apostles are mentioned first. " Built upon the founda- 
tion of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the 
corner stone." If he argues because the one is named before 
the other, therefore, that must be the order that he must 
affirm, that the apostles are older than the Jewish prophets, 
and that they existed first. To be consistent, he must take 
that as his position- If the argument is worth a farthing 
in one case, it is worth as much in the other. They have 
changed and perverted the true order of the commandments 
of God, and, therefore, they are not the Church of Christ — 
they do not possess the characteristics which entitle them 
to be the visible church, or kingdom of Jesus Christ. [Time 
Expired.] 






Seventh ©petting. 



ELDER RAY'S SIXTH ADDRESS. 



Mr. President, Brethren Moderators, and Ladies 
and Gentlemen — I am before you again, in the providence 
of God, in defense and support of the proposition which has 
been read several times, that the Baptists possess the Bible 
characteristics which entitle them to be regarded as the visi- 
ble church, or kingdom of Jesus Christ. Your attention is im- 
mediately called to the last reply. My friend said, that if the 
martyrs proved anything for our church that a multitude of 
churches had furnished martyrs. I again affirm that the Bap- 
tists are the only church or people who were the martyrs for Christ 
through the dark ages before the Reformation of the 16th century. 
The Romish church can not be recognized as the martyr 
church, because it was the persecuting power. It was that 
Antichrist that persecuted the church. She did not commit 
such folly as to execute and destroy her own members, but she 
did murder many of the saints, God's children, who were wit- 
nesses for the church in those times of fearful darkness. 

My friend says, that he denies that the Disciples were ex- 
cluded from the Baptist church,- or that Mr. Campbell was 
excluded from the Baptist church. I did not say that Mr. 
Campbell was excluded from the Baptist church. I said that I 
am identified with {hat denomination that had excluded Mr. Campbell 
and his Disciples from their fellowship. Mr. Campbell came in 



376 (Baptist Church Claims. 

with a little society and went out with it. It is true he was in 
fellowship among the Baptists at one time, and got out of that 
fellowship contrary to his own wishes, and afterward he ut- 
tered a great many complaints for having been denied the 
fellowship ; and as this was not denied in the discussion of the 
other proposition, the proof I introduced is sufficient for the 
present. 

Again, he affirmed that when I showed that according to 
his own practice, and that of his church, he did not believe 
that our plan of conversion was essentially wrong, from the 
fact that they receive those who have been converted accord- 
ing to the Baptist plan without any qualification, except mere- 
ly to unite with them. Instead of meeting the difficulty and 
answering it squarely, he said he would answer it by bringing 
a similar difficulty upon us ; and he said that we were in the 
habit — notwithstanding that we contended that they denied the 
work of the Spirit of God in conversion — of taking those who 
are converted under their plan, without any qualification 
whatever. Now, this statement, I think, is not strictly cor- 
rect ; in fact, I deny it. Those who were taken from among 
them without baptism, are those who have professed conversion 

AND REGENERATION INDEPENDENT OF THE ACTION OF BAP- 
TISM. They professed to obtain that blessing before their 
baptism among the Disciples. When they are received irreg- 
ularly, and, as we believe, inconsistently, it is only the excep- 
tion, and that occasionally. But always these persons have 
professed to have received that change of heart that we call 
conversion, in which is involved the pardon of sins. So, then, he 
is mistaken, and the case is not parallel. While he says that 
we are wrong in regard to this, and wrong in regard to the 
other, whether in fellowship with us, or standing excluded, one 
who goes to that society, to that church, is received just as he is, 
which shows that the gentleman's church does not regard our 
plan of conversion as essentially wrong. 



Elder (Ray's Sixth Address, 377 

But the Dr. comes to the doctrine of depravity, and he 
makes a very sad picture of it, and says that the Bible repre- 
sents man as growing worse and worse, while the Baptists say 
men are totally depraved, that they can't get any worse, that 
they are as bad as they can be. Then he harrowed up a fear- 
ful picture, and said it was the doctrine of the Baptist church 
that the sweet babe is as corrupt in every member of its soul 
and body as the devil himself. This, I will state, is an overdrawn 
picture ; in fact, it is not correct, and I call upon him for the 
proof. When I made a charge against his church when in- 
vestigating its claims, I introduced the proof to sustain it ; 
but when he makes a charge in regard to our church or doc- 
trine, I call upon him to prove that charge. I state emphati- 
cally that you can not find in any of our standard ivories any such 
definition of depravity. I wish to call your attention now to 
the definition of total depravity, as given by Andrew Fuller in 
his works, vol. 2, p. 662 : "If by total depravity you mean 
that men are so corrupt as to be incapable of adding sin to 
sin, I know of no person who maintains any such sentiment. 
All I mean by the term is this : That the human heart is by 
nature totally destitute of love to God, or of love to man, as 
the creature of God, and, consequently, is destitute of all true 
virtue. A being may be utterly destitute of good, and there- 
fore depraved (such it will be allowed, is Satan), and yet be 
capable of adding iniquity to iniquity without end." But 
while Satan is totally depraved, he is accountable to God. 

Depravity, as we understand it, and as defined here by Mr. 
Fuller, is not the overt manifestation of sin, but that condi- 
tion of sin, being destitute of spiritual life, destitute of right- 
eousness, destitute of holiness. When w T e declare of a human 
being that he is thus depraved, we do not understand that he 
is»a mass of corruption practically. This certainly is a very 
sad mistake into which the gentleman has fallen concerning 
Baptist views, and with many, perhaps, of his brethren. Here is 



378 (Baptist Church Claims. 

what Dr. Jeter says on the subject, p. 130 : "The spirit of 
inspiration has drawn the picture of man's moral corruption 
ia gloomy colors. He is utterly depraved — fleshly, sensual 
and impure. 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh.' — John, 
iii. 6. He is without spiritual life, without holiness, without 
moral worth — 'dead in trespasses and sins.' — Eph. ii. 1." Thus 
w r e hold, that this depravity we speak of is not a mass of prac- 
tical corruption and depravity — : the body as w T ell as the soul. 
In regard to the proof-texts I quoted from Psalms li. 5, the 
gentleman quoted from Adam Clarke, but he did not quote 
quite enough to give* Mr. Clarke's views on depravity : 
"Notwithstanding all that Grotiusand others have said to the 
contrary; I believe David to speak here of what is commonly 
called original sin ; the propensity to evil which every man 
brings into the world with him ; and which is the fruitful 
source whence all transgression proceeds." And then, again, 
says Adam Clarke on this subject, "As my parts were devel- 
oped in the womb, the sinful principle diffused itself through 
the whole, so that body and mind grew up in a state of 
corruption and moral imperfection." And this is what that 
learned commentator says in regard to that passage, conceived 
in sin and brought forth in iniquity, found in the passage 
already referred to. Ps. lviii. 3, I believe, where it states that 
as soon as they be born, they go forth from the womb, 
speaking lies. Grant that it be figurative language ; yet it 
indicates that spiritual obliquity, that moral deformity and 
depravity which an unregenerate person brings with him 
into the world. I wish to read upon the subject of depravity 
from Alexander Campbell, in his Creed, that he wrote in days 
past, as found in vol. 2 of Richardson's Memoirs of Camp- 
bell, p. 616: "I believe that every human heing participates 
in all the consequences of the fall of Adam, and is born 
into the world frail and depraved in all his moral powers and 
caDacities. So that without faith in Christ it is impossible 



Elder (Ray's Sixth ^Address. 379 

for him in that state to please God." It turns out that Mr, 
Campbell himself (and I suppose my friend will not deny- the 
testimony of Mr. Campbell upon this subject) contended that 
depravity was hereditary, and that a man was frail and de- 
praved by nature, by birth, in all of his moral powers ; that 
he came into the world in that condition. This is just as strong 
as the Baptists usually define total depravity. And yet the 
gentleman has drawn that dreadful picture, and so overdrawn 
it as to harrow up a feeling of bitterness against the Baptists — 
as if they thought the unconscious infant was as bad as the 
devil. No Baptist ever taught such folly or nonsense, and I 
hope he will not . assert it again, unless he has the proof. I 
refer to the Beligious Encyclopedia, p. 452 : "^Human deprav- 
ity essentially consists in a state of mind the opposite of that 
which is required by the divine law. The sum of divine law 
being love, the essence of depravity consists in the want of 
love to God, and our neighbor ; or, in other words, the pref- 
erence of some other object or objects, to the exclusion of 
those required in the divine law." This is enough in regard 
to the definition of depravity as given by the Baptists, and 
also as given by the great light of the gentleman's own 
church. 

But I want to make this statement.: that it is agreed that 
Jesus Christ came to the world to seek and to save that 
which was lost; and if man, by nature, is righteous, is not 
involved in the fall, and if his moral powers are, by nature, 
pure, then one who is already pure does not need a Saviour, 
and can not be saved through Christ, but is dependent on his 
own righteousness. I will ask the gentleman if he believes 
that all men that go to heaven must be saved by Christ ? If 
he admits this, he must admit that they need a Saviour, that 
without him they could never be happy in heaven. 

In regard to that passage, the opening of Lydia's heart, 
he says he agrees to this, but the controversy is about the how. 



380 (Baptist Church Claims. 

Well, I wish you to notice particularly, that the Lord opened 
her heart that she might attend to the things spoken by Paul, 
showing that the work God did was one thing, and the preach- 
ing of the gospel was another ; the words of the apostle one 
thing, and God's work another. According to the gentle- 
man's doctrine, it was Paul, who, by his argument, opened 
her heart ! It was the Lord who opened her heart that she 
attended to the things spoken by Paul. 

The gentleman tells us that the Mennonites, that we claim 
as our predecessors, were addicted to pouring for baptism. 
I simply deny the charge; and I call upon him, before I 
proceed to answer the charge, to introduce the proof. I 
know that the moSern Mennonites here in America practiced 
pouring ; but we claim no succession from them whatever. 
And if the Dr. wishes to understand the subject, as soon as 
he is initiated into the history of the Mennonites sufficiently, 
he will find that the original Mennonites — the Anabaptists — 
were as pure Baptists in their doctrine and practices as any 
the world ever saw; consequently, he must introduce the 
proof to sustain his charge. I say the charge is not well 
founded. It is not through these Mennonites here in the 
United States that we. trace our history. 

Well then, again, the Dr. has told us that the Waldenses, 
through whom we claim succession, were in the habit of 
baptizing infants, and as this is just in the line in which I 
was starting, I will call attention to some proofs on that 
subject at once. I am going to read from Jones' Church 
History; first, on page 11,5th edition, he says: " But here 
we stop ; it is needless to pursue the subject further. Enough 
has surely been said to show that the present race of the 
Protestant churches, in Piedmont, bears little or no affinity 
to the ancient Waldenses, either in their doctrinal sentiments, 
their discipline, external order, or their religious practices ; 
and it is an act of justice to the memory of those excellent 



Elder (Ray's Sixth Address. 381 

people to rescue them from this unnatural alliance." On 
page 12, he says: "They brought up their children in the 
nurture and admonition of the Lord ; but they neither 
sprinkled or immersed them, under the notion of administer- 
ing Christian baptism ; they were, in a word, so many distinct 
churches of Antipedobaptists." Here, then, is that charge 
refuted. But I go back to the testimony of these ancient 
suffering Waldenses ; I quote from a document as copied 
into Jones', page 249, and found in Perrin and in nearly all 
the histories of the Waldenses, called the " Waldensian Con- 
fession." And the Waldenses made these confessions in order 
to refute the false charges made by enemies in regard to the 
doctrines they were said to have held. Article 12, of the 
Waldensian Confession, says: "We consider the sacraments 
as signs of holy things, or as the visible emblems of invisible 
blessings. We regard it as proper and even necessary that 
believers use these symbols, or visible forms, when it can be 
done. Notwithstanding which, we maintain that believers 
may be saved without these signs, when they have neither 
place nor opportunity to observe them." Art. 13: "We 
acknowledge no sacraments (as of divine appointment) but 
Baptism and the Lord's Supper." 

Again, page 251, of the same work — another ancient Wal- 
densian document — 7th Article : " We believe that in the 
ordinance of baptism the water is -a visible and external sign, 
which represents to us that which, by virtue of God's invisible 
operation, is within us, namely : the renovation of our minds, 
and the mortification of our members through Jesus Christ. 
And by this ordinance w T e are received into the holy congre- " 
gation of God's people, previously professing and declaring 
our faith and change of life." It appears that the Wal- 
denses professed faith and a change of life before baptism. 
Little infants can't do this. Not in one of these ancient Wal- 
densian Confessions can the gentleman find an article about 



382 (Baptist Church Claims. 

infant baptism. This fact forbids the idea of infant baptism. 
Then, here is a document that was prepared by the ancient 
Waldenses, said to have been long before the time of Waldo 
himself. It is an article or treatise upon Antichrist, giv- 
ing a description of Rome or Antichrist. They say, 
Jones, page 252: "He teaches to baptize children unto 
the faith, and attributes to this the work of regeneration, 
thus confounding the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration 
with the external rite of baptism, and on this foundation 
bestows order, and, indeed, grounds all his Chris tianity.'' 
This is enough just here, and I state that there is no document 
known in the world — dated document — prior to 1508, that charges 
the Waldenses with infant baptism. The learned historian, 
Wm. Wall, one of the ablest writers on the Pedobaptist side, 
has ransacked all the documents of the past, and with all his 
learning, he found no traces of infant baptism among the 
ancient Waldenses ; and, I affirm here, and when I do so, 
I affirm that to be a fact, which I know as well as any historic 
fact, that there is no evidence known on earth of infant baptism 
among the ancient Waldenses. The charge is without founda- 
tion, and it goes to the ground. But the Dr. tells us that 
the Baptists were wrong, because they do not have repent- 
ance just exactly as he would have it ; and, as I expect to go 
on that line presently, I will call your attention to some facts 
that I wish to present further in regard to the succession of 
the Baptists. He has not denied that the American Baptists 
descended from the English and Welsh Baptists, who came 
across the Atlantic ocean — the " Atlantic Cable/' I will call 
c it, of our succession, is unbroken — going back from the shores 
of America to the old world. 

But in regard to the English Baptists, I admit that there 
were some differences among them. There were some called 
particular Baptists, on the ground of their views of the atone- 
ment ; and there were some that were called General Baptists, 



Elder (Ray's' Sixth* Address. 383 

They did' not differ materially in their church organization — 
at least, one wing of the General Baptists, so called. But the 
■ main body of the Baptists of America descended from those 
that were in that country, called, at least a part of the time, 
Particular Baptists; and I wish now to call your attention 
to a fact or two in regard to this : At the time when a large 
number of Pedobaptist Dissenters embraced Baptist views, as 
they were not very well posted in regard to Baptist affairs 
in that country, they sent one of their number across the 
British channel, to a Baptist church at Amsterdam, that had 
the regular succession from the ancient Waldenses, to receive 
baptism from the hands of their pastor. I now quote from 
Crosby's History of the English Baptists, vol. I, p. 102: 
" But hearing that some in the Netherlands practiced it, 
[immersion] they agreed to send over one, Mr. Richard 
Blunt, who understood the Dutch language. That he went 
accordingly, carrying letters of recommendation with him, 
and was kindly received, both by the church there and Mr. 
John Batte, their teacher. That upon his return he baptized 
Mr. Samuel Blackbck, a minister, and these two baptized the 
rest of their company, whose names are in the manuscript 
to the number of fifty-three." There is the proof that these 
ancient Particular Baptists, as they were called, those most 
influential in England, received there a baptism by succession 
from that ancient Waldensian Baptist church. The charge 
was once made, that one, John Smith, who was denominated 
a Se-Baptist, was the head and founder of one wing of the 
Baptist church. Upon that point Mr. Crosby says, vol. I, 
p. 99:. "If he (John Smith) were guilty of what they 
charge him with, 'tis no blemish on the English Baptists, 
who neither approved of any such method, nor did they 
receive their baptism from him." Here is the testimony from 
Crosby's History of the English Baptists; and I could pro- 
duce other testimony, showing that the English Baptists had 



384 (Baptist Church Claims, 

their succession from the ancient Waldensian Baptists, who, 
in latter times, as the historians have said, were called Men- 
nonites, in some parts of the land. 

Now, in regard to these ancient people, I call your atten- 
tion to Mr. Orchard, p. 16, quoted from D'Aubigne's History 
concerning the Baptists and the Minister Anabaptists : "One 
point it seems necessary to guard against misapprehension. 
Some persons imagine that the Anabaptists of the times of the 
Reformation and the Baptists of our day are the same. But 
they are as different as possible/' This proves that the ancient 
Munsterites were not our ancestors, and that we had no con- 
nection with them. 

I wish to introduce one more testimony in regard to the 
succession of these ancient Waldensian Baptists, from Dr. 
Allix, a Pedobaptist historian, and one of the most learned 
men that ever wrote the history of the ancient Waldenses. P. 
364 of his History of the Churches of Piedmont : "Wherefore 
that they ought not to expect till some who had their ordina- 
tion from Rome should, by their love to truth, be brought 
over to them, who might ordain pastors for them, but rather 
ordain themselves, as occasion should offer. And forasmuch 
as the said Waldenses declared that they had lawful bishops among 
them, and a lawful and uninterrupted succession from the apos- 
tles themselves, they very solemnly created three of their min- 
isters bishops, conferring upon them the power of ordaining 
ministers, though they did not think fit to take upon them 
the name of bishops, because of the antichristian abuse of 
that name, contenting themselves with the name of elders." 
Mark the fact, that the ancient Waldenses claimed an uninter- 
rupted succession from the time of the apostles, and in ordain- 
ing some ministers that came over to them from the Calixtines, 
they claimed the right to ordain them, and claimed to have the 
succession, coming down from the time of Christ himself Mr. Rob- 
inson says, in regard to this, in his Ecclesiastical Researches, 



Elder (Ray's Sixth Address. 385 

p. 127 : ''They tax Novatian with being parent of an innumer- 
able multitude of congregations of Puritans all over the empire ; 
and yet he had no other influence over any than what his good 
example gave him. People saw everywhere the same cause ot 
complaint, and groaned for relief; and when one man made a 
stand for virtue, the crisis had arrived — people saw the pro- 
priety of the cure, and applied the same means to their own 
relief." Thus we have the testimony of Jlobinson in regard 
to the character of the ancient Novatians, as they were called, 
who were afterward, when they fled from Italy, called by the 
name of Waldenses. 

Again, we have the testimony of Mr. Orchard, in regard 
to these ancient Novatians, p. 55 : "On account of the church's 
severity of discipline, the example was followed by many, and 
churches of this order flourished in the greatest part of those 
provinces who had received the gospel. " 

And then, again, we have the testimony of Neander, in his 
Church History of the three first centuries, p. 143 : "As his 
principles are so clearly to be explained from the sternness of 
his Christian character, as he was acting, in this instance, in 
the spirit of a whole party of the church existing at the time, 
there is less need to resort to an explanation, deduced from an 
external cause, which is supported by no historical proof." 
Here is the proof, that the people called Novatians did not 
originate with Novatian. They declared non-fellowship with 
those churches that were leading off into the apostasy. Cris- 
pin, the French historian, says concerning the Novatians and 
Donatists, as reported by Mr. D' An vers on Baptism, p. 223, 
in regard to this people : ' ' First. For purity of church mem- 
bers, by asserting that none ought to be admitted into churches 
but such as were visibly true believers or real saints. [That 
is Baptist doctrine — real saints, before they were entered or 
allowed to enter the church membership.] Secondly. For the 
purity of church discipline, as the application of church cen- 



386 (Baptist Church Claims. 

i j± 

sures, and keeping out such as had apostatized, or scandalous- 
ly sinned. Thirdly. They both agreed in asserting the power, 
rights, and privileges of particular churches, against anti- 
christian encroachments of presbyters, bishops and synods. 
Fourthly. That they baptized again those whose first baptism 
they had ground to doubt." 

We could heap testimony upon testimony upon this subject. 
Geo. Waddington takes the same ground, that these ancient 
Waldenses were the descendants of the ancient church which 
kept the pure doctrines of the first century, and Cramp, in 
his history of the Baptists, takes the same ground. 

Now, I think, with the proofs that I have already adduced, 
that the succession, the perpetuity of the church of the living 
God is clearly made out, and it belongs to the people now 
called Baptists. 

I wish to call your attention, as we advance, to another ar- 
gument in regard to the Baptist claims to be the church of 
the living God. It has already been discussed, and my friend 
does not disprove it, that we have no other foundation than 
Jesus Christ. He did, it is true, make, as I think, a very 
poor effort at argument to show that some fundamental prin- 
ciples among Baptists were called a foundation, but he should 
understand that we claim no foundation except Christ him- 
self, when it comes to the great foundation. But your atten- 
tion is called to the Scriptures upon the subject : "That rock 
was Christ," — as we find in 1st Cor. x. 4 — that followed ancient 
Israel, and so upon the same rock Jesus said, "I will build my 
church ; and the gates of hell* shall not prevail against it.'' 
Again, we find, in 1st Cor. iii. 11 : "Other foundation can 
no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 
Again, 1st Peter ii. 6 : "Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner- 
stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not 
be confounded." Again, as to the primary principles of the 
church, I find in the symbolical city represented in Revela- 



Elder (Ray's Sixth Address. 387 

tions xxh 14 : "And the wall of the city had twelve founda- 
tions, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the 
Lamb." [Time Expired.] 



DR. LUCAS' SIXTH REPLY. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen — I shall at once proceed to notice some points 
that I have marked down on the address to which you have 
listened, and to call your attention to some authorities bear- 
ing upon the point under discussion. My friend first states 
that the Baptist church is the only martyr church. This 
question I deny, and feel very certain that the gentleman 
is aware of the fact, that the Episcopal church, that the 
Lutheran, and the Presbyterian, and the Quaker, all suffered 
in this direction, to say nothing of the Catholics. These 
churches all suffered and had their martyrs numbered by 
hundreds and thousands. We say, again, if from the fact 
that the gentleman's church had martyrs, proves it to be the 
church of Christ, then it proves just as much for every other 
church which has in its history some members who sealed 
the sincerity of their faith with their blood. It proves as 
much for the one as it does for the other. It is a principle 
in logic, that which proves too much proves nothing. The 
gentleman's argument proves too much, for it proves as much 
in favor of all these other churches ; and, consequently, it 
proves none of them to be the church of Christ. 

Again, my friend speaks of the Baptists, who declared 
non-fellowship with Mr. Campbell. We stated that they 
did not expel Mr. Campbell from their church ; but he says 
they declared non-fellowship with him. Some of them did 
declare non-fellow T ship with him, but they were Calvinist 
Baptists, the strongest class in this country — and my friend 



(Dr. Lucas' Sixth (Reply. 389 

says he belongs to that class of Baptists that disavowed fellow- 
ship with Mr. Campbell; and, therefore, the gentleman is 
a Calvinist, as were they ; and, consequently, we know where 
to place him as a Baptist. He is a Calvinist Baptist, believ- 
ing in the doctrine of separate unconditional election. We 
may gather some light in regard to the view that the gen- 
tleman entertains in reference to election, the elect and non- 
elect, in as much as we have now found where the gentleman 
stands. He is a Calvinist Baptist, believing in separate 
unconditional election. But he says those who join the 
Baptist church from the Christian church, state thus and 
so with regard to the subject of conversion. Well, now, I 
do not know what is true with regard to all of them, but I 
will simply state that some joined at this place and some 
joined out at Dover, who made no such retraction, as the 
gentleman has stated ; and he is mistaken on that subject. 
They did state: "If you will take me as I am, without ally 
change of views, I will unite with you." Some of them 
stated this, so I have been informed, and .they took them. 
At least one, and I might name others, joined the Baptist 
church here. When the question was propounded to one of 
our brethren : "Is that individual in good standing in her 
own church ?" The answer of that brother was, that she 
was "an orderly and pious member ; v and the question, at 
once upon the statement of this brother, was put to vote, and 
the church received the individual by vote without any 
difficulty at all. These things occur very frequently; at 
least this is the information that I have upon the subject. 

With regard to the subject of total depravity again. The f 
subject of total depravity hurts my friend .very much. He 
feels its force, ftow, then, I want to state what Mr. Williams 
says, who quotes too from Brother Jeter, in a work on the 
subject of total depravity. In the first place he says — and 
one thing I wish to have specially noted, namely, on p. 86 : 



390 (Baptist Church Claims. 

"If we prove the doctrine of total depravity, we prove the 
agency of the Holy Spirit in conversion." And, again, in refer- 
ring to the same matter, he goes on to state what he means by 
"the agency of the Holy Spirit in conversion." " We believe 
in the agency of the Spirit in conversion through the word of 
truth." But then he goes on to state what he means by it ; . 
and calls it "the supernatural operation of the Spirit of God." 
The supernatural influence of the Spirit. That is what he 
means when he speaks of the influence of the Spirit as being 
necessary if man is the subject of hereditary total depravity. 
Now, then (p. 224), he says : "It is first assumed that man is 
totally," or, as Mr. Jeter has it, "thoroughly or totally de- 
praved." This depravity is defined to involve the faculties of 
the soul and members of the body ; that man, by virtue of 
inheritance, is the subject of total depravity. This is what 
they say when treating on the subject of total depravity. 
Wsll, I ask this question: Please tell this audience how 
much more depraved the devil is than totally depraved in 
every faculty of his soul and member of his body. 

Mr. Kay— What are you reading that from ? 

Mr. Lucas — I will read you plenty on it directly. 

He states that by inheritance, according to the doctrine of 
hereditary total depravity, that the infant babe upon its moth- 
er's arm is just that corrupt, totally depraved by inheritance, 
in every faculty of the soul and member of the body, which 
is the doctrine of hereditary total depravity. While I have 
this matter up I will give you some authority on the subject 
of hereditary total depravity, first stating that the Philadel- 
phia confession of faith, adopted by the Baptists, is, with very 
slight modifications, the very same confession of faith called 
the Westminster confession of faith, gotten up by the Presby- 
terians. The Philadelphia confession of faith is the same, 
with but very slight modification, and with none, as I now 
recollect, upon the subject of depravity. Now, we call your 



(Dr. Lucas' Sixth (Reply. 391 

attention to what is stated in the confession already referred 
to with regard to the agency of sin, that you may hare 
it clearly before your minds. In chapter 6, paragraph 4, we 
have these words : "From this original corruption, w 7 hereby 
we are thoroughly indisposed, disabled, and made opposed to 
all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual 
transgressions." In paragraph 2 we are told that "by the 
first sin our first parents became wholly defiled in all the facul- 
ties and parts of the soul and body." In paragraph 3 we are 
told that the guilt of this sin was imparted, and the same 
death in sin and corrupt nature conveyed to all their posteri- 
ty, descending to them from generation to generation." Here 
you discover the picture that is furnished of hereditary total 
depravity, and, consequently, we say again, if there can be a 
stronger picture drawn of the depravity of the devil, I 
would like to witness that effort. I w T ould like to hear the 
gentleman describe the depravity of the devil, and make it 
w r orse than that. And yet this doctrine affirms of every in- 
dividual — even of the innocent babe that smiles so sweetly in 
its mother's face — affirms of it this total corruption in the fac- 
ulties of the soul and members of the body. 

We now come to the question of the Mennonites again, and 
the Waldenses. We stated that the Mennonites practiced 
sprinkling, or pouring, in baptism, as well as immersion, and 
that the Waldenses recognized infant baptism, although they 
practiced immersion. Now, we give you authority upon that 
subject, and we cite you to the testimony of this Baptist au- 
thor, in his Religious Encyclopedia. Under the head of 
"Waldenses," w T e have this statement : "That they understood 
and practiced immersion as baptism, is evident ; and whether 
they generally practiced infant baptism has been long a mat- 
ter of dispute. The Baptists" — those occupying my friend's 
position — "have always controverted this, in order to get a 
general succession, and others who occupy their ground have 



392 (Baptist Church Claims 

done the same thing. The words of Reinerius seem to 
imply in his time (1250) that there were different opinions on 
this point among the Waldenses ; some were for infant bap- 
tism, and some were not, but the modern Waldenses in the 
valleys of Piedmont do practice it." The Waldenses in the 
valleys of Piedmont do practice infant baptism, according to 
this authority. 

We turn and see what he says under the head of Mennon- 
ites. We call your attention to the following : "Baptism," 
Mr. Gan says, "consists in immersion, or in pouring the 
water in the name," etc. "Conversion and faith are necessary, 
and those who are children of Christian parents, and have 
been educated in the Christian church, are under obligations 
to be baptized, as well as converted Jews and heathen. They 
train up catechumens under their ministers, and about the age 
of sixteen baptize them, taking from the candidate before the 
ministers and elders, an account of his repentance and faith. 
They reject infant baptism, and refuse to commune at the Lord's 
table with any who administer the ordinance to children, unless 
resprinkled." Now, this is what this Baptist authority says 
with regard to the Mennonites sprinkling. We have quoted 
what they say with regard to the Waldenses in the vajley 
of the Piedmont, who practice infant baptism, and these 
very Mennonites claim to receive their authority from 
Menno, the founder and progenitor of the Mennonites. 
-They claim to receive their sprinkling from Menno, their 
founder and their leader; and it is quite presumable that 
these Mennonites understood the matter as well as my worthy 
friend. But with reference to the fact that Smith was the 
founder of the Regular Baptists which he referred to — for 
he certainly did intend to refer to John Smith as the founder. 
He positively stated on his own authority, that Smith was 
the founder of the Regular Baptists, and now he goes through 
the line of Particular Baptists, and the Particular Baptists 



(Dr. Lucas* Sixth (Reply. 393 

constitute the chain in his line, and not the Regulars. We 
will give you authority upon this subject of Particular Bap- 
tists. My friend has introduced Mosheim several times; 
though I have had the work here all the time, I have not 
quoted from it, but I will quote from it a little upon this 
subject. On page 500, something is said in regard to the 
Particular Baptists and the General Baptists : " The General 
Baptists, or, as they are called, the Antipedobaptists, are dis- 
persed in great numbers through several counties of England, 
and are, for the most part, persons of mean condition, almost 
totally destitute of learning and knowledge. This latter 
circumstance will appear less surprising, when it is consid- 
ered that, like the ancient Mennonites, they professed a con- 
tempt of erudition and science. There is much latitude in 
their system of religious doctrine, which consists in such 
vague and general principles, as rendered their communion 
accessible to Christians of almost all denominations; and, 
accordingly they tolerated, in fact, and received among them 
persons of every sect, even Socinians and Arians; nor do 
they reject from their communion any who profess themselves 
Christians, and receive the Scriptures as the source of truth 
and rule of faith. They agree with the Particular Bap- 
tists," — now mark, they agree with "the Particular Baptists 
in this circumstance, that they admit baptism of adult per- 
sons only, and administer that sacrament by dipping or total 
immersion; but they differ from them in another respect, 
that is, in their repeating the administration of baptism to 
those who had received it, either in a state of infancy, or 
by aspersion, instead of dipping ; for if the common accounts 
may be believed, the Particular Baptists do not carry matters 
so far." Here, then, according to this authority, the Par- 
ticular Baptists, through which the gentleman proposes to 
trace his connection, according to the authority that he has 
introduced himself, they do not re-baptize infants or those 



394 ^Baptist Church Claims. 

who had been baptized in infancy; and then, though they 
had been baptized by aspersion, according to the statement of 
this witness introduced by my friend himself, they do not re- 
baptize that individual. There were these points of difference 
between General and Particular Baptists, according to Mos- 
heim. He quotes Robinson, and Orchard, and Jones, in order 
to sustain his point ; and every one of them have tried just 
as hard to prove what he is trying to prove, as he ever did in 
all his life ; and, as a matter of course, if you will introduce 
these men with their prejudices, who can see every thing very 
clearly, that looks in that direction, while those things that 
stand opposed are not so easily seen. Were I to assert the 
doctrine of succession, and call upon friend Kay to testify 
in favor of it, I have no dovtbt but he would get up and 
say, "certainly, that is the doctrine" beyond all dispute; 
and so Orchard and Jones say, and all those men who stand 
with my friend in regard to this matter. This is ex parte 
testimony. Here is a work — Macaulay in reply to Glad- 
stone — where Macaulay is controverting this very same sub- 
ject, and shows clearly that this is not a doctrine that can 
be established. The church of England claims the very 
same thing that my friend does for the Baptists. The < xreek 
church claims succession, and each one is trying to prove 
his line of succession. They are trying to prove it, and they 
all have failed to do it, and will fail to the end. My friend 
and every one else has failed to do it. We venture the 
assertion that the Catholic church, or the Greek church, 
either can make out a much clearer line of succession than 
can my friend, or any church of God. But then, after it 
is all made out, then what ? As we have quoted time and 
again, from Benedict and from the Religious Encyclopedia, 
which works have been before you. They state that this 
unbroken line of succession is necessary only in cases where 
the organizations claiming it are established upon tradition 



(Dr. Lucas' Sixth (Reply. 395 

and not upon the word of God. But. there is one other 
point: the gentleman has advanced to another argument. 
He says that the Baptist church is founded upon Jesus 
Christ, and says I have not denied it. The gentleman's 
memory is very treacherous upon this point, for I have 
positively denied it, and stated that his church can not be 
founded upon Jesus Christ as the foundation, from admis- 
sions and statements that he himself has made. He claims 
that for the Baptist church, and yet he can not read of it in 
the Bible, and he can not read of the Baptist church anywhere 
until the 15th century, if all heaven were offered him; before 
that time he can not read of it in history. He says that his 1 
church was established during the personal ministry of the 
Saviour in the days of John the Baptist. We stated that 
Jesus was presented, as found in Isaiah xxviii. 16, as the foun- 
dation' and tried corner-stone, the tried stone, the precious 
corner-stone, and we have stated — and he will not deny it — 
that he was tried by the persecutions of Satan ; that he was 
tried in his poverty ; that he was tried when he suffered the 
shameful treatment before Pilate's bar, in the crown of thorns 
and the mock robe, and the Boman scourge ; that he suffered, 
finally, when he was tried upon Calvary, and poured out his 
warm heart's blood upon Calvary's rugged brow, when he 
bowed his head and died upon the tree of the cross ; that these 
sufferings finished his trials here, and he entered not into the 
foundation until he became a tried stone ; and then, after this, 
when the tried stone that the builders rejected became the 
head of the corner. But we call your attention to another 
passage, as found in Ephes. ii., where it is said: " After 
Jesus had taken the middle wall of partition out of the way, 
and had nailed it to the cross, that after this one new man, 1 ' 
one new church, was made and founded upon the foundation 
of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief 
corner-stone. This was after his death. His church, he says, 



396 (Baptist Church Claims, 

was established before Christ's death, and if this was after his 
death, and his church was built before, it was not founded 
upon Jesus, the Christ, as the true and o.nly foundation. We 
deny his position upon this subject, and lay before your minds 
the points with which we closed our argument last evening. 
We stated that the gentleman's church was not the church of 
Christ, because it had not the gospel arrangement of the com- 
mandments of God as they exist in fact. We noticed his 
argument, founded upon the statement that one is mentioned 
before the other. We gave you a number of cases where this 
same order occurs, according to the statement, and he will not 
affirm that the statement there presents the order as they ex- 
ist in fact, and, yet, if his argument is worth a farthing in the 
one case, it is worth just as much in the other ; that because 
the one is stated before the other, that therefore this must be 
the order in fact. The ground of this argument we deny. 

We call your attention to a passage found in Heb. xi. 6 : 
"He that cometh to God must believe that God exists, and 
that he is a re warder of all them that diligently seek him, and 
that without faith it is impossible to please him." We state 
that whatever is before faith, is without it, until faith is added. 
Here the apostle affirms that without faith it is impossible to 
please God. His repentance, therefore, if it comes before 
faith is of no avail or importance, until the faith is added, for 
without faith it is impossible to please God. [Time Expired.] 



ELDER RAY'S SEVENTH ADDRESS. 



Mr. President, Brethren Moderators, and Respect- 
ed Congregation : Your attention is called immediately to 
the gentleman's speech. The Dr. refers to Mr. Williams, 
I believe, on total depravity and ,the necessity of the super- 
natural operation of the Spirit ; that men are utterly and 
totally depraved. If men are depraved at all, particularly 
in the sense in which we have already defined the word, I 
say, they are " utterly %> so, or "entirely" so; that is, they .are 
destitute of spiritual life, destitute of love to God, destitute 
of holiness, and this is the extent of depravity contended for 
by Baptists. The Dr.'s reading from the Westminster Calvin- 
istic Presbyterian Confession of Faith, and then trying to 
crowd it down this audience at the present time as Baptist 
doctrine, is certainly absurd in the superlative. I deny that 
this is the doctrine of the Baptists at this time, or that it has 
been at any other time, and if he affirms it is, let him read 
the proof from a Baptist document: " That all the faculties 
of the soul and members of the body are totally and entirely 
depraved !" My friend has- not read a word of proof from a 
Baptist author, where it is said, that all the faculties of the 
soul and body are entirely depraved ; and the gentleman must 
not bring a charge upon the denomination without proof. J 
call for the proof; you must give it, or else it will go to the re- 
port THAT YOU MADE A CHARGE YOU CAN NOT PROVE. 

The " sweet babe." O, how he can play upon the sym- 
pathy of the people. The sweet babe totally depraved in all 
the members of soul and body ! No Baptist ever said so that 



398 (Baptist Church Claims. 

ever I have read anywhere. But, by nature, we are said in 
the Bible to be without God ; we are said to be children of 
wrath ; that the carnal mind is enmity against God, not sub- 
ject to his law. We must not refuse to believe this, if we 
believe God's word — if we believe what God has said in re- 
gard to the moral condition of man. Mr. Campbell, his own 
author, teaches just about the same in regard to this deprav- 
ity, as we have quoted from Baptist authors. 

We wish you to notice what the Dr. said about the Wal- 
denses and the Mennonites. He said, on last night, that the 
Waldenses, through whom w T e claim succession, practiced 
infant baptism. He modifies it a little now. At first he said 
the Waldenses did it ; but now he has changed the statement 
a little bit. In relation to the Waldenses, everybody, who 
knows anything of the history of the present Pedobaptist 
Waldenses, knows that they never had any connection with 
the ancient Waldenses. When you read our histories, you 
will find that we claim to have descended from the ancient 
Waldenses, those that had no historic connection whatever 
with the present inhabitants of the valleys of the Alps. 
These are facts that the gentleman ought to know. He 
ought to know that Mosheim, the historian, has slandered 
the Baptists a good deal, but has admitted some very im- 
portant points in their favor. He was a Lutheran and a 
hater of the Baptists and ancient Waldenses. 

I will read in regard to the Waldenses, as given here in 
the Encyclopedia, p. 1147 : "It seems to be a serious mis- 
take into which some popular writers have fallen, who repre- 
sent the Waldenses as originating in France, about the year 
1170, and deriving their name from the celebrated Peter 
Waldo. The evidence is now ample, that, so far £rom being 
a new sect at that period, they had existed under various 
names as a distinct class of dissenters from the established 
churches of Greece and Kome in the earliest ages. It is an 



Elder Ray's Seventh Address. 399 

egregious error to suppose that when Christianity was taken 
into alliance with the state, by the emperor Constantine, in 
the beginning of the fourth century, ail the orthodox churches 
were so ignorant of the genius of their religion as to consent 
to the corruption of a worldly establishment." On the same 
page this learned authgr says : "These Puritans, being ex- 
posed to severe and sanguinary persecutions for dissent, from 
age to age, were compelled to shelter themselves from the deso- 
lating storm in retirement ; and when at intervals they reap- 
pear on the page of contemporary history, and their principles 
are propagated with new boldness and success, they are styled 
a new sect and receive a new name, though in reality they are 
the same people." This shows the succession of the Walden- 
ses. The gentleman has produced no proof that the ancient 
'Waldenses practiced infant baptism — none whatever. But he 
thinks he has got proof from Mosheim, that the Particular 
Baptists of England admitted infant baptism, or admitted 
those who had not been immersed ! I will call your attention 
to the testimony of Mosheim upon the subject, and, as I before 
stated, I do not quote Mosheim as showing that we approve all 
he said ; for I state, that he was one of the most bitter haters 
of the Baptists that ever wrote, and many of these' conces- 
sions are extorted from him by stern and stubborn facts. 
They are only to be taken as concessions, while he misunder- 
stands and misrepresents the Baptists very often. Here is 
what he said about these Particular Baptists, beginning on 
page 500 : 

"Others are called Particular or Calvinistic Baptists, for 
the striking resemblance of their religious system to that of 
the Presbyterians, who have Calvin for their chief. The 
Baptists of the later sect settled chiefly in London and in the 
adjacent towns and villages ; and they have departed so far 
from the tenets of their ancestors, that, at this day, they 
retain no more of the peculiar doctrines and institutions of 



400 (Baptist Church Claims. 

the Mennouites, than the administration of baptism by im- 
mersion, and the refusal of the sacrament to infants, and 
those of tender years ; and, consequently, they have none of 
those scruples relating to oaths, wars, arid the functions of 
magistracy, which still remain among even the most rational 
part of the Mennonites." The ancient Waldensian Baptists 
were opposed to bearing arms ; were opposed to serving in 
official positions in the state. And these Particular Baptists 
in England agreed with them in the administration of bap- 
tism by immersion, and the rejection of infant baptism. • 

So, according to Mosheim, the Particular Baptists were the 
same with the ancient Mennonites. He only states what the 
gentleman has read, as a kind of rumor or report. He does 
not quote a single statement of fact ; and he can not. The 
rumor from Mosheim is too palpable for any man to believe- 
that the Particular Baptists of England ever practiced infant 
baptism, or received members upon anything except im- 
mersion ! 

I call your attention again to the testimony ill regard to 
the Mennonites, of whom the Dr. speaks. Mosheim, in his 
history, page 500 (I have the quotation here convenient, and 
I will read it from the " Baptist Succession," page 432), 
says: "The Baptists of the latter sect settled chiefly in 
London." This is the same quotation I hUve read. I will 
read on page 433: "And yet it is certain that the present 
Mennonites, as they have, in many other respects, departed 
from the principles and maxims of their ancestors, have, also, 
given a striking instance of defection in the case now before 
us, and have almost wholly relinquished this fundamental 
doctrine of their sect, relating to the nature of the Christian 
church." (Mosheim, p. 497.) 

Speaking of two parties among the Mennonites, Mosheim 
says, page 496: One party favored a rigid execution of 
church discipline, while the other was more moderate. He 



Elder (Ray's Seventh Address. 401 

says: " These two sects are, to this very day, distinguished 
by that denomination of fine and gross; or, to express the 
distinctions in more intelligible terms, into rigid and moderate 
Anabaptists. The former observe with the most religious 
accuracy, veneration and precision, the ancient doctrine, dis- 
cipline, and precepts of the purer sort of Anabaptists ; the 
latter depart much more from the primitive sentiments, man- 
ners, and institutions of their sect, and more nearly approached 
those of the Protestant churches. The gross or modern 
Anabaptists consisted, at first, of the inhabitants of a district 
in North Holland, called Waterland ; and, hence, this whole 
sect received the denomination of Water Landrians." 

So these gross Mennonites departed from the principles and 
practices of the Mennonites, or those called Anabaptists, with 
regard to whose origin Mosheim himself says it is buried in 
the remote depths of antiquity, and extremely difficult to be 
ascertained. The gentleman affirmed that Mr. Smith (he did 
not tell us which one it was, I would like for him to give us 
a little light upon that subject) — that Mr. Smith was the 
founder of the Regular Baptists. I wish the proof. I want 
the Dr., when he makes a charge, not simply to make it and 
pass it by, but I want him to prove the charge. I let it pass 
until he attempts the proof. 

I will proceed now in my line of argument. The Baptists 
possess the Bible foundation. The simple denial of the gen- 
tleman has nothing to do with the question. I have stated, 
from God's word, that the foundation is Jesus Christ. The Dr. 
does not deny that the primary members, according to that 
symbolic city, whose foundation stones represented the apos- 
tles, as being those first introduced into the organization. 

We come, now, to the foundation as regards doctrine, and 
quote the very same that he has quoted, Eph. ii. 19, 20 : 
"The foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ 
himself being the chief corner-stone." We claim the teach- 



402 (Baptist Church Claims. 

ing of the apostles and the prophets, as being the doctrinal 
foundation — the doctrine of the apostles and prophets. But 
my friend's church can not go to the prophets to sustain their 
plan of salvation. We contend that the very plan of salva- 
tion that we advocate was preached, was advocated, was taught, 
by the ancient prophets, as well as apostles. Then, in Act3 
x. 43 : "To him give all the prophets witness, that through 
his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission 
of sins."' There the apostles appealed to the prophets — the 
Old Testament prophets — who taught that, through his 
name, every believer in him was to receive, and would re- 
ceive, remission of sins. 

Now, we come to another point — one the gentleman has 
already touched upon — the order of the commandments. He 
says we are wrong because we have not the proper order, be- 
cause we teach that repentance in point of order comes prior 
to faith with the heart — prior to the faith of love, and says 
that our repentance is not of faith ! Because the apostle has 
said that it is impossible to please God without faith ; " for he 
that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a 
re warder of them that diligently seek him." My friend has 
built up, as he supposed, quite an argument, as follows : 
" Whatsoever is before faith, is without faith, until faith is 
added ; if repentance is before faith, it is without faith, until 
faith is added ; and therefore repentance will not please God ! 
Now, this seems to be a singular argument. And on the same 
principle I would say that hearing the word which he admits 
must be before faith (because one can not believe without 
hearing) — if hearing the word is before faith, then it is with- 
out faith, until faith is added ; consequently, it is displeasing 
to God, because without faith it is impossible to please Him ! 
Going to the house of prayer may be before faith, and it is 
without faith till faith is added ; consequently, going to church 
is displeasing to God ! Oh ! what a quibble. 



Elder Cray's Seventh Address. 403 

The gentleman made a rule, in one of the former discussions, 
"that whatever is essential to the production of faith is legitimate, 
and must be understood" I said, amen. Whatever is essential 
to the production of faith is legitimate — that it must be un- 
derstood. There is no faith with the heart, before the indi- 
vidual is penitent. Sinners, in the letter to the Romans, are 
said to be haters of God. We do not love God while in a state 
of nature. The man that does not love God can not love him 
till he repents; therefore he can not have faith with the heart 
prior to repentance. We do not contend that a man is to re- 
pent before he knows there is a God ; but there is a vast dif- 
ference, as already noticed, between knowing there is a God, 
or believing that God is, and believing in the Lord and Sa- 
viour Jesus Christ. 

But the gentleman says we are wrong, because we preach 
this order. Well, if we are, dear friend, we are in splendid 
company. I will read now the passages of Scripture on 
which we depend for holding this order of the ordinances. 
The Saviour, while preaching said, Mark i. 15 : " Repent ye, 
and believe the gospel." Here he puts repentance and faith 
down together : " Repent ye, and believe the gospel." My 
friend would say : " believe the gospel and repent!" because 
the Saviour did not give the proper order ! ! Again we find in 
Matthew xxi. 32, where the Saviour said: "For John came 
unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him 
not : but the publicans and the harlots believed him : and 
ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye 
might believe him." Jesus makes repentance in order to faith. 
Again, in Acts, xx 21, Paul says, in regard to his labors at 
Ephesus : " Testifying both to the Jews and also to the 
Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord 
Jesus Christ." It will be seen, that every time that these 
commands are mentioned in God's word, repentance is first, 
every time when they are mentioned in connection. This 



404 (Baptist Church Claims. 

order is fixed, and irreversible. But the gentleman claims, 
that we violate God's word — the eternal truth of God! — and 
he claims, that the Saviour was mistaken, that Paul did not 
understand himself. Now, because the Baptists follow the 
Saviour in their order of preaching, because they follow Paul, 
who suffered so much for Christ, the gentleman says, we are 
not the church of Christ ! Then Paul was not in the church of 
Christ ! The apostolic churches w T ere not the churches of 
Christ, because this is the order the Saviour established. 
And to save him from purgatory the gentleman can not find 
his order in God's precious book ; he must therefore get up a, 
system of philosophy of his own. I will say, dear friends, 
according to the structure of the human mind, according to 
common sense, if you please, according to philosophy, no man 
can believe in Christ until he is repentant. Suppose I am 
guilty of hating my friend. I believe that he exists ; I be- 
lieve all about him ; but speaking of him L say, "I do not 
believe in that man," "I do not trust and confide in him." 
And the gentleman must know, if he will look in his Greek 
Lexicon, that the meaning of the word pistis (faith), em- 
braces trust You can not, to save your life, find, faith, in 
God's word, in the sense of justification, without trust — con- 
fidence ; — this is the loving faith. No man can have the lov- 
ing faith while he hates a brother or hates God. Now, as I 
was carrying out my illustration, suppose I am hating that 
individual, I can not trust him and love him until the change 
takes place which brings me from hatred to love; and that 
change is repentance. It is an internal change, a change of 
mind and soul ; and yet the gentleman talks about having 
faith before that change ! The carnal heart is said to be en- 
mity against God- — not subject to his law — and yet the gentle- 
man advocates such a system as changes the order of the 
commands, and, therefore, it is not the system that is squared 



Elder (Ray's Seventh Address. 405 

and measured by the word of the living God. It is contrary 
to the testimony of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 

I wish to advance with my argument, if I have time, by 
saying that we are the Church of the living God; because 
we introduce into the organization those who are properly pre- 
pared — the proper materials. This has been discussed already, 
and will take but little time. It has been proved from God's 
word. . While, upon his proposition, the Dr. did not deny, 
I believe, the position that I took in regard to the materials 
being properly prepared. It is true, w T e differed somewhat 
in regard to the preparation, but that they must be scrip- 
turally prepared is agreed, Now, what is that preparation? 
They must be children of God; otherwise, you take them 
in as children of Satan, as we have proved that his church 
did this. The Disciples propose to take them in, to make 
them children of God! But 1 read a statement again of 
Mr. Anderson, indorsed by himself, in one of the former 
discussions. He says : 

" The Baptists baptize men because they are Christians, while 
i the Disciples baptize men to make them Christians. If the Bap- 
tists are right in this, then the Disciples are wrong." So I say. 
Now, I wish to call your attention to the testimony I find on 
page 181, Religious Encyclopedia, of the Baptists views of the 
materials, as follows : " That in the opinion of Baptists, bap- 
tism is the immersion in water of a suitable candidate, in the 
name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The only 
suitable candidate is a person who has been born of the Spirit, 
and who is united to Christ by faith." We contend that none 
should be baptized except those who are born of the Spirit of the 
living God, and united to Christ by faith. Again, we find, 
Religious Encyclopedia, page 191, the following: " Of Bap- 
tism and of the Lord's Supper — Christian baptism is the 
immersion of a believer in water, in the name of the Father, 



406 (Baptist Church Claims. 

Son, and Spirit ; to show forth in a solemn and beauti- 
ful emblem our faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, 
with its purifying power; that it is prerequisite to the privi- 
leges of a church relation ; and to the Lord's Supper, in which 
the members of the church, by the use of the bread and wine, 
are to commemorate together the dying love of Christ ; pre- 
ceded always by solemn self-examination." There we have 
the testimony, and the gentleman will not deny it, that this is 
fundamental Baptist doctrine, and, if I have time, I will quote 
to you the testimony of Dr. Lynd, his favorite Baptist autho- 
rity, in regard to the design of baptism, from page 11, same 
work: " This is the justification of a sinner, or his reception 
for the first tftne into the favor of God ; in which, in refer- 
ence to the law and its penalty, he is viewed as if he were 
righteous. There is also the justification of the believer, 
which does not embrace the idea of restoration to the favor 
of God. It is simply a justification of the believer by his 
obedience to the teachings of Jesus Christ. The former, 
that is, the justification of the ungodly, is the point so fre- 
quently argued by the apostle Paul in his letters to the Ro- 
mans and the Gallatians, The latter, that is, the justifi- 
cation of the righteous, is the theme of the apostle James. 
Both illustrate by the example of Abraham, but at different 
periods of his history. Abraham believed God, and it was 
accounted unto him for righteousness — at least forty years be- 
fore he was justified by works — when he proceeded at the 
command of God to offer up his son Isaac. 

The justification of the sinner, is, by faith alone, without any 
work of law. The proof of this is unnecessary to present, as 
the fact is admitted by all evangelical Christians. This 
justification is entirely gratuitous. It must of necessity be so, 
because all are sinners. Hence, Paul says : 'Being justified 
freely by his grace through the redemption, that is in Christ 
Jesus." Now, his justification must be by faith, in order to be 



Elder (Ray's Seventh -Address. 407 

of grace. If it were not so, it could not be sure to all the 
spiritual and of Abraham. Here we have a well established 
basis. With this all our views of divine truth must harmo- 
nize. The love of God as the moving cause of our justifica- 
tion ; the atonement of Christ is the procuring cause ; and 
faith is the instrumental cause. Baptism is never mentioned 
in Scripture as a cause of any kind of justification/' And yet 
the gentleman seems to have misunderstood Dr. Lynd ; he 
supposed that Dr. Lynd had been contending for baptism as 
a condition, really, of pardon. 

Again, on page 16 : " The fact can not be called in question, 
that salvation is predicated of faith, of baptism, and regenera- 
tion, and persevering obedience. But it is not predicated of 
each in the same sense." Whatever Dr. Lynd said, in regard 
to baptism, in connection with salvation, it can not be in the 
sense of justification. He did not so believe. It is a char- 
acteristic of the Baptists to stand upon this great fundamental 
principle, that Jesus Christ is the great foundation, and that one 
must be justified in the sight of God by faith. When Dr. Lynd 
says faith alone, he does not mean without repentance, because 
repentance is essential to faith with the heart; and that 
justification, then, by works, is the manifestation of that 
faith, that faith of subjection to Christ, which Dr. Lynd talks 
about, manifested in the sight of the world. The truth of 
God's word sustains fully, as we believe, our position in 
regard to justification by grace through faith, that not of 
ourselves, it is the gift of God. We have the testimony of 
the apostle upon this subject, Rom. vi. 1-7: "What shall 
we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may 
abound ? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, 
live any longer therein ? Know ye not, that so many of us 
as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his 
death ? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into 
death : that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by 



408 (Baptist Church Claims. 

the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in new- 
ness of life. For if we have been planted together in the 
likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his 
resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified 
with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that 
henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is 
freed from sin." [Time Expired.] 



DR. LUCAS' SEVENTH REPLY. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen : Just while this question of Dr. Lynd is before 
the mind, and as my friend has got back to the discussion of 
Baptism again, we will call your attention to a passage or two. 
We have in the discussion with the gentleman stated that 
Dr. Lynd said that the sinner was justified by faith alone, 
but he goes on to define what he means by this faith by 
which the sinner is justified ; I will read — and I might read a 
number of other passages, that state the same fact — on page 
26 he is speaking of baptism, which he calls subjection to 
Jesus Christ, and he goes on to state, "for a man may sub- 
mit to this ordinance, and not be really in the kingdom of 
Christ, and because of such refusal we clearly say that they 
have not the faith to justify : This subjection to Jesus Christ 
in baptism is necessary to the very existence of faith itself." 
Now, that is his language, "the subjection to Jesus Christ is 
necessary to the very existence of faith itself," "for it is an 
element of faith as much as love to God is an element of sa- 
ving faith" — just as much. I mention another passage in con- 
nection with this subject. In discussing the subject of the 
remission of sins and repentance which the gentleman has in- 
troduced, I, in reply, call your attention to Dr. Lynd upon 
this subject : " The expression for the remission of sins would 
ordinarily indicate the same as the words in order to the re- 
mission of sins. Professor Hackett, of Newton, who may be 
regarded as good authority, has translated the passage — Acts 
ii. 38, eis aphesin amyrtibn — by the words "in order to;" that 



410 (Baptist Church Claims. 

is what Dr. Lynd says. And, he says, "in this he will prob- 
ably be sustained by the most distinguished scholars." Now 
we call your attention to Dr. Hackett himself, one who trans- 
lated the Scriptures under the supervision of the Bible Re- 
vision Association. Mr. H. says, in confirmation of the 
statement made by Dr. Lynd : " Upon the subject of Acts ii, 
38, for the remission of sins in order to remission or forgive- 
ness of sins eis aphesin amartion, that these words were con- 
nected naturally with both of the preceding verbs, this ex- 
pression eis aphesin amartion, in order to the forgiveness of 
sins. This expression is connected naturally with both of the 
preceding verbs, that is, the clause states the motive and 
object which should induce them to repent and be bap- 
tized. It enforces no exhortation in one part of it to 
the exclusion of another." That is what he says on 
this subject. We call your attention to some points in the 
gentleman's last address. He speaks of confession. We 
stated that the confession of the Baptist church simply re- 
iterated the Westminster confession. We made that state- 
ment simply, because we did not have the Baptist confession 
with us to-night ; but we pledge you that we will have it 
here on to-morrow evening, and we will show you that what 
we have stated is just the truth ; and, hence, as we had not the 
copy, we read from the Westminster Confession of Faith, but 
we will show the other when we shall meet on to-morrow. 

But as to the foundation of the Baptist church again. The 
gentleman says that' I did not deny that they built upon the 
right foundation. I do most positively deny it. I have not 
made any statement more emphatic in this discussion than 
that, and I show, according to his statement, that his church 
was built at the wrong time, and that Jesus was the tried 
stone and foundation referred to in Ephesians, showing that 
the church was built after the middle Avail of partition was 
taken away, and founded on the apostles and prophets, Jesus 



(Dr. Lucas' Seventh (Reply. 411 

himself being the chief corner-stone. My friend's church, ac- 
cording to his own statement of the time when it was built, 
could not have been built upon that foundation, for that foun- 
dation was not prepared or established. I hope the gentleman 
will not tell this audience again that I have not denied it. I 
have done so, and given my reasons for it. Let him remove 
the objection that we found upon these passages, and then he 
will do something. But he fails to do anything for his cause 
until he shall remove those difficulties. His getting up and 
saying, I have not denied this, that, and the other, is doing 
nothing for his cause. Let him remove the difficulties, and 
then he has done something. But he quotes Acts x. 43 : " To 
him give all the prophets witness, that through his name who- 
soever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Now, 
I suppose that he quoted this passage to show that the indi- 
vidual receives remission of sins by faith alone. I can not 
tell what else he quoted it for. What does Peter affirm here ? 
He affirms that the prophets bear testimony that through the 
name of Jesus Christ, he who believes in him shall receive 
remission of sins. There is just one question in regard to this 
passage. My friend's theory makes it faith alone, and this I 
deny. According to Acts of the Apostles x. 11, Peter was 
to tell him, whereupon he should be saved. The gentleman 
has given you only a part of what Peter preached. He showed 
that the prophets looked to him as the Messiah that was to 
come, and when they were induced to receive the proclama- 
tion made by Peter in regard to Jesus Christ, when they, as 
on former occasions, believed on him, he commanded them to 
be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus ; and unless bap- 
tism has two designs, baptism was, at the house of Cornelius, 
just what it was for on the day of Pentecost, and Dr. Lynd 
and Hackett, as we read to you, both affirm that it was in 
order to the remission of sins, and consequently this was the 
part of the words that Peter was, to tell him, whereby he and 



to 



412 (Baptist Church Claims. 

his house were to be saved. Hence the gentleman has gained 
nothing by referring to the Acts or Cornelius. 

They are wrong in the order of the commandments. Now, 
the gentleman did not present the issue as we presented it. 
We presented the issue thus : The gentleman is wrong, for he , 
teaches that because repentance is mentioned before faith, 
that therefore that is the order in fact ; while we deny that 
this is the order in fact, and cite you to John iii. 
and Eph. ii., where apostles are mentioned before prophets, 
which he will not affirm to be the case. This is the ground 
of his argument. I hold, that if his argument is worth any- 
thing in the one case, it is worth as much in the other, or he 
must show that his argument here is better in the passages 
to which he refers than it is in the others, or otherwise he 
gains nothing by it. He referred to the fact, that hearing 
comes before faith. We answer just as he stated, that which 
is necessary in order to the production of faith, is legitimate. 
Then he says, that repentance occupies that relation to faith, 
that it comes before faith and is in order to the production of 
faith. We submit this proposition, that the repentance, 
which is unto salvation could not exist without the antece- 
dent, godly sorrow. Godly sorrow must antedate that repent- 
ance, which is unto salvation, because Paul affirms [2d Cor- 
inthians, vii. 10.] that godly sorrow works repentance 
unto salvation, that needeth not to be rejjented of. We sub- 
mit that repentance unto salvation can not exist without 
godly sorrow. Yet godly sorrow does exist before it works 
repentance unto salvation. We submit another projDOsition, 
that no man can have a godly sorrow for sin that has not 
faith with the heart, for that godly sorrow, which works re- 
pentance unto salvation, is a condition of the heart, and 
therefore it must be antedated by faith in the heart in order 
that the sorrow exist. And this sorrow must exist before 
the repentance that it works. Consequently faith is first 



(Dr. Lucas' Seventh (Reply. 413 

from its nature, and also from the nature and character of 
repentance. Now, I call your attention to Dr. Lynd again. 
My friend has arrived at a point that he is disposed to ac- 
knowledge Dr. Lynd as a good Baptist. At first he did not 
consult or indorse him, I do not know that he will do it yet, 
but he seemed to indicate that he will do so, On page 9, 
of Dr. Lynd's work, he says: "If a man truly believes he 
will repent of his sins." Dr. Lynd, therefore, makes faith 
come before repentance. If a man truly believes, has his 
heart purified by faith, he will repent, and his repentance 
will be right. Now, I call your attention to Dr. Jeter, page 
246: "The wisdom and grace of God are eminently man- 
ifested in making faith, and not immersion, the line of dis- 
crimination between the states of condemnation and justifi- 
cation." We want you to bear in mind, now, that Dr. Jeter 
is a Baptist, and has written a Baptist book against what 
he calls Campbellism. "It is a line invisible to us, but not 
to God. It marks the precise point at which the rebel 
becomes a child. It is the commencement of spiritual life, 
and is the source of all true obedience." Now, titien, we 
want to call your attention to this language especially. It 
is the commencement of all spiritual life, and is the source 
of all true obedience. We give you the following syllogisms 
for your consideration, and for that of my friend. The first 
that we present is this : 

Spiritual life is commenced in faith. — Dr. Jeter. 

Repentance is essential to spiritual life. — My friend. There- 
fore, 

Repentance is commenced in faith. — Lucas. 

That is the conclusion we draw from these premises, and 
we challenge the gentleman to show its fallacy. We repeat 
this syllogism: Spiritual life is commenced in faith ; repent- 
ance is essential to spiritual life ; therefore, repentance is 
commenced in faith. If commenced in faith, faith must come 



414 (Baptist Church Claims. 

before repentance; it can not come before that in which 
repentance is commenced. But, again, we give you another. 
The statement here is, that it is the source of all true obedi- 
ence. All true obedience embraces repentance. Man can 
not truly obey God, as God has commanded, unless he does 
repent of his sins. All true obedience embraces repentance ; 
faith is the source of all true obedience; therefore, faith is 
the source of repentance. The gentleman, on one occasion, 
asked for some " therefores." We give him some to which 
we invite his special attention, and we wish him to show that 
these syllogisms are illogical, and that they are not reliable. 
We say that from the premises, as here furnished, that we can 
come to no other conclusion than that faith is the commence- 
ment of spiritual life, and there is no spiritual life without 
repentance ; and, therefore, we say -that faith must come 
before repentance, as it comes before spiritual life; and as 
faith is the source of all true obedience, if repentance is a 
part of true obedience, it must be a source of repentance, 
and, therefore, it must exist before it. We say these facts 
are so clofir, that every one must see them at once. 

With regard to the proper material again. Well, we have 
stated before, and w T e state now, that we claim as much in 
the preparation as the gentleman. We claim faith with all 
the heart — repentance in the gospel sense of the word. If 
we claim the faith and the repentance, then, in the language 
of Paul, this, penitent believer is baptized into Christ, and 
he thus puts on Christ, being baptized into the faith. Why ? 
Surely because we believe Paul upon this question, and we 
carry out the divine plan ; our position certainly can not be 
objectionable on this account, when we have all that he has, 
and all that the apostles present upon the subject. 

We call your attention now to the argument further upon 
the gentleman's position. We state, sixthly, that his theory 
of the knowledge of pardon is w T rong — wrong in regard to 



(Dr. Lucas* Seventh (Reply. 415 

the means by which that knowledge is obtained. According 
to Mr. Williams, it is enjoyed as the result of feeling, and is 
not from the positive declaration made in the divine volume. 
It is the result of feeling and not baptism, according to Mr. 
Williams, or any act or faith. We state, that if feeling is the 
evidence of pardon, then every individual can prove himself 
right. You take that worshiper according to the system of 
the papacy, you see that individual as she approaches the 
confessional, and her countenance is sad, she is bowed down 
in grief and sorrow, and every indication is that of sorrow 
and sadness and deep anguish of heart, but after she has gone 
to the confessional, her eye sparkles with joy, her counte- 
nance is bright, her step is quick and joyous; I ask you, 
wherefore is the change ? " Why/' she says, " my sins are par- 
doned." " How do you know they are pardoned?" "The 
priest has pardoned my sins, and I feel that all my sins are 
remitted." We state, that, if feeling is an evidence of par- 
don, it is in the case of that Catholic lady, she has as much 
proof of the fact as my friend, and therefore the conclusion 
forces itself upon the mind, that his theory of the evidence 
of pardon is wrong, or otherwise both of these are right, and 
the priest has actual power to pardon sins, and this lady's 
sins are actually pardoned. And we might go on from this 
system, that system, and the other system throughout Chris- 
tendom ; we might refer to all of them to show that they all 
have evidence of the fact, if this be evidence, that they are 
right and their sins are pardoned. 

But the seventh argument is this : the practice of the Bap- 
tists in the observance of the Lord's Supper is inconsistent 
and unscriptural, I mean those that my friend represents. 
There are some Baptists that stand precisely where we do 
upon the question, that do teach precisely what we teach upon 
this subject, but I mean those that are represented by my 
friend — that their theory and practice are inconsistent and 



416 (Baptist Church Claims. 

unscriptural. Now, here is the individual that my friend ad- 
mits to be a child of God, just as good as he is. He acknowl- 
edges that he is just as pious, just as devoted, and that Christ 
has pardoned his sins, and that he is a member of the kingdom 
of Christ. I presume he will admit, in some sense or other 
at least, he is a member of the kingdom ; he is a child of God, 
and therefore a member of the family of God. Well, the 
apostles say to those approaching this table : " Let a man ex- 
amine himself, and so let him eat. He that eateth unworthi- 
ly, eateth and drinketh condemnation to his own soul." My 
friend here, and the church that he represents, assume the 
right to examine the individual, and, in contradiction of the 
statement of the apostle, tell him, "Sir, we have examined 
you, and you shall not eat." Paul says, " Let a man examine 
himself, and so let him eat." My friend says, " No, we will 
examine you, and say you shall not eat, unless you have come 
up to our particular standard." And yet the gentleman 
acknowledges the individual to be a child of God — a member 
of the family of God — but he assumes the right to examine 
this child of God. But when he would approach his father's 
table, and partake of the emblems of the body and blood of 
the Son of God, my friend says : " No, sir, you shall not do 
it, you shall not eat." 

Now, then, we have given you as many as ten distinct 
organizations of Baptists, ten members of the Baptist family ; 
and we now state this proposition — and the gentleman will 
not deny it. The Particular Baptists will not admit the 
Regulars, neither will the Regulars admit the Particulars; 
and so with the Old Connection, with the New Connection, 
and with the Particulars, and the Seventh-Day Baptists — not 
that they have not come in just precisely as my friend came 
in, not that they have not entered according to the law as 
presented by himself, but he would examine that individual 
and say : " Sir, though Paul says to you, 'let a man examine 



(Dr. Lucas' Seventh (Reply. 417 

himself, and so let him eat/ we take the position that we 
will examine you, and tell you, sir, no, you shall not eat," 
Therefore, we say that the gentleman is inconsistent, and his 
position is unscriptural upon this subject. We desire that 
you shall look at this question closely and seriously, and we 
bring the matter a little nearer home. Not only those who 
belong to the different branches of the Baptist family, but 
independent organization's or associations of their own — there 
are many in his church — that even take the position that 
those who are not members of this particular local organiza- 
tion, have not the right to commune with those in that 
organization, though they are of the same faith, the same 
order ; yet, not being members of this particular organization, 
they should not partake of the emblems of the body and 
blood of Jesus. They carry their doctrine in regard to the 
communion and the restrictions to be placed over it to this 
extent. But we call your attention now to some facts in re- 
gard to the position, assumed by the gentleman with refer- 
ence to his kingdom — and to other points in connection there- 
with, and we present a few objections to his theory as we 
stated. [Time Expired.] 



ELDER RAY'S EIGHTH ADDRESS. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen — My worthy friend seems to be very much 
troubled about the Baptist communion ; and, yet, he has said 
in this discussion, that the Baptist church is Babylon ! a part 
of Babylon. He says that the Baptists are in Babylon ; and 
he is so much inclined to Babylon, that he wants to commune 
with Babylon ! That is the ridiculous attitude in which he 
finds himself now, pleading for sympathy and "open commu- 
nion." The Pedobaptists he does not believe to have been 
born of God. Then, they are children of Satan, Now, he 
wants to commune with them — for popularity, it seems to 
me. The gentleman's church holds to that "open" system, as 
he calls it, of communion ! He quoted a passage or two of 
Scripture in regard to the Lord's Supper, where it is said : "Let 
a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and 
drink of that cup." If he will notice in the first chapter, first 
and second verses, 1st Cor., that it is addressed to "the church 
of God, which is at Corinth" — not addressed to everybody. 
This "church of God at Corinth" as we find in 1st Cor. xi. 21, had 
acted very indecently in eating : "Every one taketh before other 
his own supper : and one is hungry, and another is drunken." 
Thus they acted disorderly, and the apostle wrote a letter to 
the church at Corinth. " But let a man examine himself, and so 
let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." Suppose, in 
my absence, I hear of the congregation where I labor, that 
they have done likewise. I write a letter to them, addressing 
that congregation at Athens, Kentucky, and say : "Let a man 



Elder (Ray's Eighth Address. 419 

examine himself, and so let him eat," &c; do you suppose that 
I have given instruction to persons not in that organiza- 
tion, when I addressed that organization ? But he says that 
Ray proposes — or his church — "to examine." Well, we call 
attention to 1st Cor. v. 11-13 : "But now I have written unto 
you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be 
a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunk- 
ard, or an extortioner ; with such an one no not to eat. For 
what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do 
not ye judge them that are within ? But them that are with- 
out God judgeth. Therefore put away from among your- 
selves that wicked person." Here, then, the apostle says with 
such an one we are not to eat. Then we must judge to some 
extent. I am not comparing idolaters and extortioners to the 
Pedobaptists, but I am quoting this to show that we are com- 
manded to judge those that are within ; that is, we are to judge 
who have entered into fellowship and into membership with 
the church. This is the authority God has given. If not, 
there can be no church discipline. You might exclude a man 
to-day for the worst conduct imaginable, but according to the 
principles of "open communion," practiced lately, he can go 
among the Disciples and commune with them without any ex- 
clusion from their fellowship. God's children will be held 
responsible for internal heresy or false doctrine, and for the 
moral standing of church members. 

Then, in regard to this question of communion. We appeal 
to no sympathy except that which is gained from the truth of 
God's word. I ask, did the Son of God institute the supper 
before baptism? No, he did not. That man who would ap- 
proach the Lord's table before baptism, violates the example of 
the Son of God. And the man that teaches him to do so 
teaches him to violate the law of God. Dr., how do you teach 
Pedobaptists about communion? Do you teach them that 
they have no right to commune with you? What do you 



420 (Baptist Church Claims. 

instruct them as to their religious duties ? Do you teach that 
the unbaptized have the right to commune with you ? "He 
that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh 
damnation to himself." Do you teach that ? I would like for 
you to notice this point while pleading for sympathy about 
communion. I find the Saviour, alone from the world, in 
that "upper room," invited none there except those represen- 
tatives, or the primary members of that organization — that 
church of Christ — that kingdom that the Son of God had 
established. Jesus said: "I appoint unto you a kingdom, as 
my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and 
drink at my table in my kingdom." But, says one, we believe 
in "open communion;" we will eat and drink when and where 
we please. The Lord's table is in his kingdom. Now, I will 
say that we, as Baptists, do not keep people from coming to the 
Lord's table. We invite every child of God to come to the 
Lord's table and there partake of the Lord's Supper ; but if 
we were to invite men contrary to God's law, it would be re- 
bellion against the Lord himself. We would be guilty of 
raising an adverse standard. We have no right to deviate 
from God's word to please men, whether good or bad. What 
would be thought of an angel who should preach another gos- 
pel? An apostle would say, "let him be accursed." We must 
follow the command of Christ, whether it is popular or not. 
When they cried out, "Men and brethren what shall we do," I 
suppose the gentleman's church would say, "Come along, and 
let us have open communion, that is the first thing necessary!" 
But that is not the fact. It is, "Repent and be baptized." 
Open communion violates God's eternal word. In John's let- 
ter to the Elect Lady, he says : "If there come any unto you 
and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, 
neither bid him 'God speed,' for he that biddeth him God 
speed is partaker of his evil deeds." One that holds fellow- 
ship with another doctrine hurtful in its nature, and invites 



Elder (Ray's Eighth Address. 421 

those into the church who are evil-doers, is a partaker of their 
evil deeds, errors and false doctrines, whatever they be. 
If I had time I should like to quote several authorities on 
the subject. Mr. Hibbard, one of the ablest and most con- 
sistent writers among the Pedobaptists, says (on Bap. , page 
174) of the Baptists, that " it is evident, according to our 
views of Baptism, we can admit them to our communion ; but 
with their views of baptism, it is equally evident, they can 
never reciprocate the courtesy. And the charge of close com- 
munion is no more applicable to the Baptists than to us, inas- 
much as the question of church-fellowship with them is deter- 
mined by as liberal principles as it is with any other Prote- 
stant church — so far, I mean, as the present subject is con- 
cerned." Dr. Wall, the great Pedobaptist historian, says: 
" Among all the absurdities that ever were held none ever 
maintained that any person should partake of the communion 
before he was baptized." And, again, we have the testimony 
of Mr. Campbell on the subject of communion ; in the Mil- 
lennial Harbinger, vol. 2, page 393, he says: "We do not 
recollect that w T e have ever argued out the merits of this 
1 free and open communion system.' But one remark we must 
offer in passing, that w 7 e must regard it as one of the weakest 
and most vulnerable causes ever plead; and the 'great' Mr. 
Hall, as he is called, has, in his defense of the practice, made 
it appear worse than before. In attempting to make it rea- 
sonable, he has only proved how unreasonable and unscriptural 
it is." I have quotation after quotation on the subject. Here 
is Mr. Campbell, the leader in the Reformation, who tells you 
that this open communion is unreasonable and unscriptural. 
But because the Baptists will not follow an unreasonable 
and unscriptural practice, they are not the church of Christ ! 
A strange fanaticism, it seems, has seized upon some who want 
us to violate God's word, in order to get sympathy — in order 
to be called liberal and popular in the world. But, I say, let 
us hold firmly to the truth of God's word. 



422 (Baptist Church Claims. 

I quote again from Dr. Lynd. I think the gentleman has 
misunderstood Dr. Lynd in regard to making baptism a part 
of faith — an essential part of it ; I will try and quote a little 
more from the same work, Design of Baptism, page 26 : 
" Jesus Christ does not regard us as saved from our former 
allegiance, or as being members of that spiritual kingdom 
w T hich he has set up in the world, if we refuse to be baptized 
into the name of the Sacred Trinity, or to put on Christ in 
this ordinance ; not simply because we are not baptized — for 
a man may submit to this ordinance, and not be really in the 
kingdom of Christ — but because, by such refusal, we clearly 
show that we have not the faith that justifies." Now, here is 
the part that the gentleman read — that is, " the subjection 
to Jesus Christ" — and he called it "in baptism." He put in 
a kind of parenthesis in the reading ! Dr. Lynd says : " This 
subjection to Jesus Christ is necessary to the very existence 
of faith itself, for it is an element of faith as much as love to 
God is an element of saving faith." What is an element of 
faith ? The subjection of the spirit — the subjection to Christ, 
that prompts him to obey when he learns the truth and his 
duty. But Dr. Lucas understands it another way. He 
would have it, that baptism is that subjection! In other 
words, Dr. Lynd teaches that it is saving faith that gives the 
spirit of subjection and enables one to come forward for the 
ordinance of baptism. 

But my friend bases an argument upon the order of repent- 
ance and faith, and, forsooth, we are not the church of Christ 
because we preach like Jesus ! and because we preach like the 
apostles ! ! that is the substance of his argument. Jesus said, 
repent and believe; the gentleman says, " believe and repent ! " 
The Dr. says that I just simply base the argument for repent- 
ance before faith, because one is found before the other. I say, 
I based it thus, because one is essential to the existence of the 
other. Because faith with the heart can not exist in the soul 



Elder (fray's Eighth Address. 423 

before repentance. He must have repentance before he can 
have that faith ivith tlie heart. 

But my friend got up some arguments, and he thought he 
had several very important arguments. We will look over 
them: " Godly sorrow," he says, comes "before repentance." 
Well, grant that it is wrought by godly sorrow ; does that 
prove that repentance comes after faith in point of order ? By 
no means. Because we have shown before that this sorrow, 
in connection with repentance, must be exercised before we can 
have faith with the heart. This involves that change w T e were 
talking about, and his quotation from Dr. Jeter does not help 
him in the least. Dr. Jeter says, on the very page where he 
quoted, that repentance is inseparably connected with this 
faith he talks about. It is not repentance afterward. But 
that repentance with contrition is essential to the existence of 
that faith. Again, he says spiritual life commences with 
faith, according to Dr. Jeter, and repentance is essential to 
spiritual life. I will grant that repentance is essential to life, but 
it is also essential to faith with the heart. So, all his argu- 
ments have no sort of bearing upon the subject. Repentance 
is essential to spiritual life, certainly : so it is essential to 
faith with the heart. When we have faith with the heart, we 
have spiritual life. " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the 
Christ, is born of God." Well, the Dr. has one born of God 
before repentance, for he has repentance afterward ; because, 
whenever he believes with his heart, he is bom of God. If he 
believes with his heart before repentance, as the gentleman 
contends, he is born of God before, and independent of repent- 
ance ! This is where his doctrine takes him. 

But he said — I don't know whether he intended to or not — 
that repentance was the source of true obedience, and I drew 
this syllogism : Repentance is the source of true obedience ; 
repentance is essential to faith ; therefore, obedience is com- 
menced in repentance. I reckon that will be just about as 
good a syllogism as he can fix up. 



424 (Baptist Church Claims. 

But the Baptist theory of the knowledge of pardon, or sal- 
vation, is wrong. This is the first time the Dr. has thought 
of that in our discussions. He has gotten up at least one new 
argument here, no more ; ih^t feeling must not be an evidence 
of pardon, oh, no — that it proves the Bomanists to be right ; 
that it proves they are right because that poor deluded one 
that goes and makes confession, goes away feeling that she is 
pardoned ! Well, dear friends, I want to know, who goes any 
further in the Bomish doctrine of church salvation, than the 
church to which the gentleman belongs. In the gentleman's 
church, salvation occurs in the act of baptism, properly ad- 
ministered. As practiced in the hands of the Bomish church, 
a man goes, in order to salvation, to some one, to make his 
confession, who is authorized to tell him his sins are pardoned. 
In the gentleman's church the preacher tells him if he is bap- 
tized his sins are pardoned, if he has prerequisites which he 
requires ; but he does not require the Bible prerequisite, for 
he is wrong in point of order of repentance and faith. He 
does not teach accordirig to the Bible in regard to repentance 
and faith. 

But in reference to faith I wish to notice one thing : Love 
is evidence of passing from death to life — 1st John iii. 
14: "We know that we have passed from death unto life, 
because we love the brethren." We learn that love is pro- 
duced in the heart by the Holy Spirit — Bom. v. 5 : "Hope 
maketh not ashamed ; because the love of God is shed abroad 
in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." 
This is the way that love gets into the heart. Now, we know 
we pass from death to life, because we love. I wish to know 
if the Dr. thinks that there is no feeling in love — that 
feeling is not an evidence of love. He has of course such fine 
sensibilities, it would be sacrilege to say that he does not 
love his wife. But he does not know it by feelings! He 
has no internal feeling or emotions ! He knows it, perhaps, be- 



Elder (Ray's Eighth Address. 425 

cause somebody told him so ; because there is no internal 
evidence of love ! But we know that we pass from death unto 
life, because we love. If there is any feeling in love, then 
there is feeling in the evidence of pardon. Now, we make 
the statement, that the Dr., if he had understood himself, 
would never have made such a flimsy argument. I ask him 
this question, and I wish him to answer it : Can any body be 
immersed and fail being pardoned® I wish you to answer now, 
Yes or No. If he was to answer, he would say, certainly, yes. 
What is necessary to his pardon, according to my friend ? He 
must obey from the heart. Who knows whether he obeys from 
the heart — Dr. Lucas, or somebody else ? He himself. He says 
he knows it himself. He is the only one that can. How ? 
from internal, not external evidence. If he knows it, then 
there is feeling. He conscientiously knows he has obeyed, from 
the heart ; therefore, according to my friend's own doctrine, 
feeling is evidence of pardon. I say, according to the teach- 
ings of his own church, feeling is an evidence of pardon, in- 
ternal and conscious. But I think he denies the true evidence 
of pardon, because he has inverted the order, and has differ- 
ent kinds of faith. 

Now, I wish your attention to 1st John iv. 7 : " Every one 
that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God/' Here is love 
before baptism, because to baptize a man hating God is utter- 
ly ridiculous and out of the question. But this one is born of 
God and knows God. He knows God because he loves God ; 
and yet the Dr. tells you there is no internal evidence of par- 
don ! Again, 1st John v. 10, "He that believeth in the Son of 
God hath the witness in himself. " Here is the internal witness, 
then, that the Dr. repudiates ! that we are to have the internal 
evidence. In Rev. ii. 17 : "To him that overcometh will I 
give to eat of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white 
stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man 
knoweth saving he that receiveth it." In this figure God rep- 



426 (Baptist Church Claims. 

resents his gift by a white stone, that no man knows except 
he that receives it. So, then, the Dr. has certainly lost that 
point against the Baptists, 

But my friend contends that we are wrong in regard to the 
evidence of pardon. Now, I did not say that the internal is 
all the evidence of pardon. I wish you to notice the order of 
the witnesses, as found in 1st John v. 8 : "And there are three 
that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the 
blood : and these three agree in one." Here is the witness 
of the spirit bearing testimony that we are God's children, 
with the love of God shed abroad in our hearts. Also, we 
have the order of the witnesses. We have the witness of the 
spirit, declaring the remission of sins ; and, then, we have the 
witness of emblematic blood in the Lord's Supper, after bap- 
tism is church fellowship. In regard to the order, they are 
spirit, water, and blood. This is the orgler that God lays down. 

We claim to be the church of Christ, because we observe 
the Bible church government. We claim the Bible, and the 
Bible alone. We not only claim it, but we claim the whole 
Testament. Dr. Way land says, "The whole New Testament, 
and nothing but the Testament," and you will find this in all 
the statements of our faith and practice. But we call your 
attention to this, the gentleman will not deny it. I believe 
in a former discussion he admitted that we had this charac- 
teristic, that our government was right, and when we say New 
Testament we do not mean that our New Testament commences 
with the second chapter of Acts. 

We take the model prayer, that Jesus gave, the whole 
of it; and we can say, "Our Father who art in heaven, hal- 
lowed be thy name, thy kingdom come." But Disciples do 
not generally pray that way ; that prayer is out of date with 
them ; they do not profess to take the whole of that prayer. 
We take the New Testament^ and we try to preach and advo- 
cate the plan of salvation executed by Jesus Christ while upon 



Elder (Ray's Eighth Address. 427 

earth, when he said to the poor woman that washed his feet 
with penitential tears and wiped them with the tresses of her 
head, "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace." There was 
no baptism connected with that saving there. The baptism 
administered by John was for the remission of sins, in the very 
sense in which remission of sins is attached to baptism in the 
Acts of the Apostles. Jesus made and baptized more disci- 
ples than John (John iv. 1). He made disciples, and then 
baptized them — baptized them because they were disciples. 

We say : "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and 
tell him his fault between thee and him alone." "If he shall 
neglect to hear them," finally "tell it unto the church ; but if 
he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a hea- 
then man and a publican." We find that the entire church is 
authorized to act in the transaction of the business belonging 
to that body. We claim the government laid down in God's 
word. Our ministers, instead of being rulers in the sense of 
administering the discipline of the church, officially, are only 
the servants of the church. We occupy the place that the 
Bible assigns the ministers of Christ. 

But I wish to introduce a few more passages in regard to 
salvation, and that before baptism. I have been questioned 
upon that important question that baptism is a condition of 
pardon and of salvation, Just before 1 sat down I had read 
from Rom. vi. 7, which says : "He that is dead is freed from 
sin." That death to sin was used in the sense of being sepa- 
rated from sin. That death to sin must take place before we 
are buried with Christ in baptism. If we bury a man before 
he is dead to sin, we bury him to kill him to sin, while he is 
joined to his sins. Now, the figure requires that one be sepa- 
rated from his sins — that he be dead to sin. When one dies 
physically, a separation takes place between the body and the 
spirit; and when we die to sin, the old body of sins is put 
away — the separation takes place. This must be before the 



428 (Baptist Church Claims. 

burial in baptism, or you destroy the figure. Then you are 
buried with Christ in baptism. 

Again, the Dr. referred to Dr. Hackett, and others in re- 
gard to the baptismal question. Dr. Hackett connects both 
the verbs, Acts ii. 38, with the remission -of sins. If you will 
go and examine him upon Acts xxii. : " Arise, brother Saul, 
and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name 
of the Lord." He does not make this washing away of sins a 
literal remission of sins, but only a formal washing away of 
sins, which is the doctrine of the Baptists. 
• But my friend intimates that I do not indorse Dr. Lynd. 
There are some expressions in Dr. Lynd I do not indorse, but 
I believe that he is as sound a Baptist as ever lived. He con- 
tends that the justification of the sinner is by faith alone; but 
I do not like to say " alone," because some will say you mean 
without repentance ; but when it is explained, it is faith pre- 
ceded by repentance. It is by grace, through faith, not our- 
selves, but it is the gift of God. 

But to one more proof text : John v. 24 : "He that believ- 
eth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not 
come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life." 
Wilson's translation says, is passed out of death into life, that 
passage is immediate. When one believes in Christ he is al- 
ready passed out of death unto life. 

Again, we refer to Acts x. 43, "To him give all the proph- 
ets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him 
shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these 
words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God." 
They received the gift of tongues before their baptism. Peter 
said, "Can any man forbid water, that those should not be bap- 
tized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? " I 
wish the Dr. would answer this question: Were they children 
of God? [Time Expired.] 



DR. LUCAS' EIGHTH REPLY. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, and Ladies 
and Gentlemen — My friend says I want to commune very 
badly with his church. I would like to know how he knows 
it. I have not said so ; but I do say that they being wrong , 
upon this question, is an argument against their claim that 
they are the church of Christ. That is what I say. The 
gentleman has a w T ay of shifting positions and getting the 
points at issue in a different light from that in which they are 
presented. I argue that the Baptists are not the church of 
Christ, because they are inconsistent and unscriptural on this 
point. He says that the Pedobaptists are working for popu- 
larity. Well, he is very ungenerous to them ; but we will 
just let that pass. What did he -do with those cases of Bap- 
tists that came in just like he did ? There are different organi- 
zations of the Baptist family, who do not commune or 
fraternize in this particular, and he does not invite them, and 
they do not invite him to commune. Did he notice those 
cases ! Not at all ! He knows what we say upon that subject 
is true, and he knows also that these are persons that have 
done, as far as submission to the gospel of Jesus Christ is con- 
cerned, that they have done all that he did ; and, yet, while 
Paul says, "Let a man examine himself and so let him eat," 
my friend says, " No, we will examine you, and so let you not 
eat." That is his practice ; and it is not his practice only so 
far as these other organizations of the Baptist family are con- 
cerned, but even they carry it frequently into the same faith 
and order, as they style it — for some of them contend that 



430 (Baptist Church Claims. 

members of one local congregation have no right to commune 
with members of another congregation of the same faith and 
order. 

, How does he propose to prove that they have the right to 
exclude from communion ? He refers to the wicked person 
engaged in persecution against God, and in his case the apostle 
says, "put him away," judging him. Therefore he must 
judge the individual acknowledged to be a child of God, and 
when God says, "let him eat," he will say, "let him not eat." 
Now, I ask, where can any man find authority in the case of this 
wicked person for judging one that we acknowledge to be as 
good and pure as we are, and a child of God, and as consistent 
in his life as we are — how can he bring up a case of this kind 
and compare it with that wicked person that you are called 
upon to judge and put away from you, and say that we will 
take this case as authority to show that we have the right to 
judge a child of God, who is just as good as ourselves, and do 
the very opposite to what the word of God teaches. It says, 
"examine yourselves, and so eat," and he says, "no, we will 
examine you and tell you, 'no you shall not "eat;'" hence, 
we say, his theory and practice in regard to the Lord's Supper 
is inconsistent, unscriptural and wrong. We furnish an argu- 
ment here against one of the doctrines of this church, that it 
does not possess the characteristics that entitle it to be regarded 
as the visible church or kingdom of Jesus Christ. He has again 
brought up repentance before faith, and says that repent- 
ance — of course, gospel repentance — unto life is essential to the 
production of faith ; we positively deny that the repentance 
unto life mentioned in the Scriptures is necessary to the pro- 
duction and the existence of faith. We deny that proposition. 
Now let him prove it, and then he will gain something. We 
said faith was the source of spiritual life. We knew ex-, 
actly the point we were making. We had quoted from Jeter, 
and our syllogism we founded on the declaration that Jeter 



(Dr. Lucas' Eighth (Reply. 431 

says, "faith is the source of spiritual .life," that "faith is the 
source of all true obedience/' and we submitted the following 
syllogism on that statement that my friend has not denied : 
Spiritual life is commenced in faith ; repentance is essential to 
Spiritual life; therefore, repentance is commenced in faith. 
The question of true obedience embraces repentance ; all true 
obedience embraces repentance ; faith is the source of all true 
obedience ; therefore, faith is the source of repentance. How 
did the gentleman examine this syllogism? Well, I was 
certainly amused. He tried to examine one and finally said 
that I had said something of repentance. So I had — but he 
knew precisely the point I presented. He knew I had read 
this syllogism and presented the point to him, w T hich he knew 
very well, for we have gone over this ground too often together 
for him to mistake this point. Hence, he says, "I don't 
know that he meant to say that." That is just what he did 
know, that I did not mean to say it, if I did say it ; he knew it 
very well. But he noticed this syllogism, and certainly it was 
a notice. I was going to say something in regard to a boy 
twelve years old, but I will just let you infer what I intended 
to say. Now, I call upon him to examine these syllogisms and 
show that they are not correct, and that the conclusions are 
illogical and false. They stand like the rock Gibralter, 
immovable, unless he can show their error, as long as they stand. 
His theory w T ith regard to repentance before faith is false, for 
his argument depends upon the fact that one is mentioned 
before the other, and not upon the fact as to their existence. 
Has he noticed those passages that I presented time and again ? 
He has not. He has been as silent as the night of the grave. 
And why ? Because he knows that if he mentions them his 
argument is gone to the winds — gone forever. 

But, now, with regard to obedience and pardon following. 
He quoted a number of passages. Now, I state this, as found 
in the 16th verse of the 8th chapter of Romans — and I am 



432 (Baptist Church Claims. 

glad to have the opportunity of presenting what I regard 
as the proper theory with reference to this subject. Paul 
affirms, "The Spirit of God beareth witness with" — not to, not 
upon, not that it makes the impression upon our spirits, or 
testifies to our spirits, but "The Spirit of God beareth witness 
with our spirits, that we are the children of God," that the 
Spirit of God bears witness w T ith the spirit of the children of 
God, and that they both testified in order to the establishment 
of the truth of the proposition that we are the children of 
God ; that we sustain this relation to the Divine One. But 
the quotation to which we refer makes feeling the evidence 
of pardon. In connection with this matter, I propose, to elabo- 
rate the subject more fully hereafter. I now state this propo- 
sition : I state that the Spirit of God never tells a man that 
he is pardoned when the gospel says he is not ; to say he is 
pardoned when the gospel affirms that he is not, is to say, " I 
do not believe the gospel," and Jesus says he that belie veth not 
the gospel shall be damned ; and it never can be made to ap- 
pear that the Spirit of God tells the man that he is pardoned 
when Jesus says he is damned. But when we come to investi- 
gate the gospel of Jesus Christ, we find the language of Jesus 
himself in the 16th chapter of Mark's record, 15th and 16th 
verses, in which Jesus uses these words : ' ' Go preach the gos- 
pel to every creature ; he that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved." Now, Jesus positively affirms, " he that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved." The Spirit of God never tells 
the man that he is pardoned, until the gospel tells him that 
he is pardoned, and the gospel does not tell him that he is 
pardoned until he believes and obeys it. The Spirit of God 
does not tell him so unless the Scriptures contradict themselves. 
While upon this point 1 want to call your attention to Dr. 
Lynd again, to show that he is not with the gentleman upon 
that subject, but that he sustains the position that I occupy. 
Now, we call your attention to this language : " When we be- 



(Dr. Lucas' Eighth (Reply. 433 

lieve in Jesus as our Lord, we put ourselves under his govern- 
ment in the way which he has appointed, that is, by baptism." 
He said, we put in parenthesis, " baptism." Dr. Lynd spoke 
of baptism as subjection ; he said it was something else, and 
that we put in baptism there in parenthesis. Well, Mr. Lynd 
puts it in there himself, there is no parenthesis about it — 
"in the way which He has appointed" — that is, by baptism. 
"No saving faith can be exercised independently of this sub- 
jection." Now, what subjection ? Here Lynd says, in the way 
which God has appointed, namely, by baptism, we put our- 
selves under his government. Now, no saving faith can exist 
independent of this subjection — putting ourselves under his 
government in the way that he has appointed, namely, by bap- 
tism. No saving faith without this subjection in the cases 
where it is required. No part of the New Testament war- 
rants a man in anticipating salvation who does not come into 
subjection — the same subjection that he speaks of here — come 
into subjection to the government of Jesus Christ, in the way 
which he has appointed. How is it? Why, that is by bap- 
tism, says Dr. Lynd — God granting him life and opportunity 
to put on Christ. Lynd's work, pages 14 and 15: "Now, 
throughout this essay, and when we speak of a sinner's justi- 
fication by faith we mean this kind of faith." What kind of 
faith.? Why the kind of faith that embraces this subjection to 
Christ. Says Dr. Lynd, we do embrace this, and this is one 
of the elements of faith ; and yet my friend would labor to 
make you believe that Dr. Lynd in the faith that justifies does 
not embrace this baptism, when he says in so many words, 
"Throughout this essay, when we speak of justification by 
faith, we mean this kind of faith, that has as an inherent ele- 
ment of submission to the authority of Jesus Christ." This 
baptism appears throughout — this putting on the authority 
and government of the Son of God, and thus putting on the 
Christ 



434 (Baptist Church Claims. 

My friend quoted a number of passages, "And he that be- 
lieveth hath everlasting life," and so on; and he quotes a 
translation here and says, it is so and so, which is the correct 
one. I would just simply state that his translation there re- 
ferred to, that it is not authority in this controversy or any 
where else, unless you should happen to get into a discussion 
with the individual himself; for he occupies no position of 
prominence or authority in the religious or literary world. 
But we want to know whether it is by faith alone. Now, I 
say this, that eternal life is promised to that individual who 
continues faithful in the service of God to the end. "Seek 
after glory, after honor, after immortality, that ye may obtain 
eternal life." Eternal life is the reward promised to that in- 
dividual who seeks after glory, or honor — eternal life is the 
reward. 

But now, again, in the 6th chapter of Paul's letter to the 
Romans : 

"But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but 
ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was 
delivered to you. Being then made free from sin, ye became 
the servants of righteousness, and have your fruit unto holiness 
and the end everlasting life." You have become the servants 
of righteousness, you do right. And John says : 

" Little children, let no man deceive you ; he that doeth 
righteousness is righteous even as Christ," or, even as he is 
righteous you become servants of righteousness ; you do 
righteousness, according to John, and have your fruit unto 
holiness, and the end everlasting life. Now, the gentleman is 
bound to say that Paul does not tell the truth,, that John does 
not tell the truth, or that this passage to which he refers, in 
which faith is mentioned, that it means more than faith alone ; 
and when he says that it means more than faith alone, then he 
gives up the question. If he says it includes repentance, 
then I say that it is because repentance is required somewhere 



(Dr. Lucas' Eighth (Reply. 435 

else. He must answer, and if repentance is embodied because 
it is required somewhere else, then other things, I say, are re- 
quired also, because they are mentioned somewhere else, and 
he must take the position clearly that it is by faith alone, or 
give up the question. It furnishes him no proof. He speaks 
again of the Acts of the Apostles. Now, I aver that the mi- 
raculous descent of the Holy Spirit was to convince the Jews 
that the Gentiles had equal part and lot in the plan of re- 
demption through Jesus Christ with the Jews, and that it had 
that effect ; for when they saw it they were satisfied upon this 
question, and they glorified God, and said then has God granted 
unto the Gentiles repentance unto life. But, my friend, if 
that baptism was necessary to pardon, then you must stand 
condemned before God, and all your church, for you never 
have been baptized as was Cornelius and his household, 
and not a member of his church has been.' He will not con- 
tend for it for a single moment. They have never been baptized 
in that way, not one of them. I now present these objections 
to the position of my friend, that the kingdom was established 
in the days of John, before the death of the Saviour. The 
first objection is this : If it was set up during the life of the 
Saviour, it was built without its foundation. " Behold, I lay 
in Zion for a foundation a tried stone." This point we have 
already presented for your consideration. 

Second — If the church existed during the natural life of Jesus, 
it existed without a priest ; for Jesus was not a priest until he 
was set on the right hand of the throne of God. And this you 
can find clearly sustained in Psalm ex. 4, and Zachariah vi. 3, 
and again Hebrews viii. 4, where it is positively affirmed 
that he was not a priest on earth, according to the language 
of Paul ; and, hence, if the church was established during his 
natural life, or while he was here in the world, the church 
existed without a priest, for Jesus was not a priest on earth. 

Third — If the church existed while Jesus was on the earth, 



436 (Baptist Church Claims. 

it was without the Holy Spirit ; for the Spirit was not yet 
given, for it was not given until Christ was glorified. — Read" 
John vii. 39. Then they have no Holy Spirit, for " it had 
not yet been given, " as Christ had not ascended. The same 
truth is found presented in the Acts of the Apostles ii. 36 : 
"Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath 
made that same Jesus, whom ye crucified, both Lord and 
Christ," and because of this ascension and coronation "he hath 
shed forth this which ye now see and hear." The Holy Spirit 
was given according to the promise of the Saviour. 

Fourth — It was without the gospel in its facts which saved 
sinners. I call your attention first to 1st Cor. xv*. 1-3 : "More- 
over, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached 
unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein you stand ; 
by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I 
preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I 
delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how 
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ; and 
that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day ac- 
cording to the Scriptures." Now, I hold that this gospel could 
not be preached in fact until the facts were established by his 
actual death, burial and resurrection. 

Fifth — If the government of Christ was set up during his 
stay on earth, it was without a king. The two passages fol- 
lowing I will call your attention to as proof. Acts ii. 36-38, 
w 7 here Jesus^is spoken of as coronated at the right hand of 
the Majesty on high. And, again, Philippians ii. 9-11 : 
"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him 
a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus 
every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, 
and things under the earth ; and that every tongue should con- 
fess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." 

The sixth objection is this : If the kingdom of Jesus the 
Christ existed before his death, then there existed at the same 



(Dr. Lucas' Eighth (Reply. 437 

time two different kingdoms, with different laws and ordinances 
and subjects, and both existing at the same time under the 
divine sanction. There was a kingdom before the kingdom of 
Jesus Christ existed — the gentleman will not deny this — that 
existed under divine sanction. John was a member of it ; Jesus 
was a member of it, and the apostles w T ere members of that king- 
dom, but that kingdom never was established or set up until 
Jesus upon the cross bowed his head in death, and exclaimed, 
"It is finished." We say, if there was another kingdom es- 
tablished prior to the death of the Saviour, then there were 
two kingdoms existing at the same time, with different laws, 
with different ordinances, and both under the divine sanction 
at the same time. We present these objections to the theory 
of my friend with regard to the beginning and the establish- 
ment and existence of this organization for which he contends. 
I state, in regard to his church, or in regard to any other church, 
as being established before the death of Christ receiving the 
divine sanction, that no such thing existed as a church that stood 
at that time, or at any time, as established by divine authority. 
For hundreds and hundreds of years you can not read of his 
church, for his church had no existence in the Bible or any 
other history. In the year 1522, we have the first announce- 
ment of the existence of his church as an independent organi- 
zation existing in the world. And we want you to keep these 
facts before your minds, that you may determine when we shall 
have passed through this investigation, where the truth is, 
and where true safety may be found. 

We desire also to present before your minds, again, this ar- 
gument with reference to the communion. He refers to the 
communion — and I do not want you to forget the point that we 
make upon that subject — we state, that there are those whom 
the gentleman admits are the children of God, as good as 
himself, and yet he will not admit them to the table of God* 
— [Time Expired.] 



©ighfh ©venting. 



ELDER RAY'S NINTH ADDRESS. 



Mr. Eay — I suggest that the Moderators, not to take up 
the time of discussion, be permitted to read their criticisms 
upon the passages about which we differ first, and then we 
shall go on with our debate. 

President Smith — A matter of criticism having been re- 
ferred to President Cook and myself, I submit the following : 
I understand Dr. Ray's position on Acts ii. 38 to be as 
follows : The two commands, metanoesate and baptistheto, are not 
united in order to procure the same result, because they have 
two different persons and numbers, and consequently have 
different objects. Dr. Lucas contends that although these 
verbs are of different persons and numbers, they are addressed 
to the same persons, and have in view the same end. The 
following passages are introduced by Dr. Lucas, confirming 
his position taken on Acts ii. 38, 1st Cor. xiv. 39, 40. Here 
we have zeloute and koluete in the second person plural, imper- 
tive, and ginestho in the third person singular, imperative. 
While these verbs have grammatically different subjects, the 
commands expressed by them are in fact addressed to the 
same persons. As to the object of these verbs I submit the 
following : Imperatives connected by a conjunction, expressed 
or implied, have the same object, unless a different object is 



Elder (Ray's Ninth Address. 439 

expressed or necessarily implied. Different objects are not 
here expressed, nor are different objects necessarily implied. 
I conclude they have the same object. In 1st Cor. xvi. 13, 14, 
we have gregoreite, stekete, andrizesthe, and krataiousthe, in the 
second person plural, imperative,* and ginestho in the third 
person, imperative. I understand these verbs to be addressed 
to the same persons and to have the same object in view. In 
ginestho we have in that passage third person singular, imper- 
ative ; and I understand the same persons are addressed in 
these verbs with the same object in view as in the preceding 
verbs. The passages introduced by Dr. Lucas [1st Cor. xiv. 
39, 40, and xvi. 13,14, and Acts ii. 38] are parallel in so far 
as the subject and object of the verbs in the second person 
plural, imperative, where connected are concerned. In Acts 
ii. 38, and parallel passages, second person plural, imperative, 
takes its subject collectively, while the third person singular, 
imperative, in the same passage, takes, in fact, the same sub- 
ject individually and distributively. That is my criticism. 

President Cook — It is not denied by Brother Ray, or by 
myself, that the language is addressed to the same persons. 
We are willing to admit that all of 1st and 2d Corinthians 
were addressed to the same persons. That is not the question, 
as I understand it, in dispute. You might as well have taken 
Romans as an example, and select every verb, and say, because 
they are addressed to the same persons that they are parallel ! 
Brother Ray has put it in this form : 

President Cook — Dear Brother : As regards the reply 
of Dr. Lucas to my criticism on Acts ii. 38, last Friday, I ask 
the following questions : 

"Are those verbs referred to by him [1st Cor. xiv. 37] found 
in that verse ?" 

I reply, no. 

"Second — Have the verbs he named the same grammatical 
subject?" 



■■ 

440 (Baptist Church Claims. 

I reply, no. 

"Are they of the same tense as metanoesate and baptistheto 
in Acts ii. 38 r 

I answer, no. 

"Are they joined by the conjunction Icai, to obtain the same 
result ?" 

I answer, no. 

"Are those examples given by Dr. Lucas from 1st Cor. 
xiv. — , the verse you have left blank, Brother Ray. 

Me. Lucas — Yes, xiv. 39, 40, were the ones quoted. 

Me, Cook — We did not understand it so. 

"Are these examples given by Dr. Lucas from 1st Cor. 39, 
40, and xvi. 13, 14, parallel in construction with metanoesate 
hai baptistheto in Acts ii. 38 ?" 

We reply, no, to all these questions. 



ARGUMENT OF MR. RAY. 

Me. Peesident, Gentlemen Modeeatoes, and Ladies 
and Gentlemen — I feel thankful to the giver of all good, 
our great Creator, for the privilege of again standing in the 
presence of this intelligent audience in the advocacy of the 
proposition which has been read in your hearing, that the 
Baptists possess the Bible characteristics which entitle them 
to be regarded as the visible church or kingdom of Jesus 
Christ. As regards the criticism I made, I thought I knew 
what I was doing. I had consulted no one upon that subject 
when I made it, and according to the decision of President 
Cook, in whose ability I have the utmost confidence, I am 
correct upon that subject. But I again repeat, that where two 
Greek verbs are connected by the conjunction Icai, with a view to the 
same result, in the New Testament, as far as I have examined, they 
are in the same number, with the same subject, and with the same 



Elder (Ray's Ninth Address. A41 

construction throughout. I wish to read, before I advance with 
my argument, a statement or two in regard to the doctrine of 
baptismal salvation, as I have before me some historical au- 
thorities in regard to the rise of that error. I read from Wad- 
dington's History of the Church, p. 37 : 

"The original simplicity of the office of baptism had already 
undergone some corruption. The symbol had been gradually 
exalted at the expense of the thing signified, and the spirit of 
the ceremony was beginning to be lost in its form. Hence, a 
belief was gaining ground among the converts, and was 
inculcated among the heathen, that the act of baptism gave 
remission of all sins committed previously to it." I read also 
from Neander's History of the Three First Centuries, page 199: 

"But while, on the one hand, the doctrine of the corruption 
and guilt, inherited by human nature, as the consequence of 
the first transgression, was reduced into a more systematic and 
distinct form, [which was particularly the case in the North 
African Church, as we find in the history of the doctrines of 
Christianity,] and on the other, from the want of a proper dis- 
tinction between the external and internal things of baptism 
(the baptism of water, and the baptism of the spirit), the error 
was gaining ground, and becoming more firmly established 
that without outward baptism no one could be freed from 
that inherited guilt, could be saved from the eternal punish- 
ment which threatened him, or brought to eternal happiness ; 
and w T hile the error of the magical effects of the sacrament was 
constantly obtaining more and more sway, the theory of the un- 
conditional necessity of infant baptism was developed." Here is 
the testimony of Neander, showing that the symbolic design of 
baptism was perverted in early times. AVe have the testimony 
of Miall, page 368, this historian says : "In the ante-Mcene pe- 
riod sin was regarded much more in its overt demonstrations than 
in its spiritual destructiveness; repentance had degenerated into 
penance ; regeneration into baptism ; justification by faith into 



442 (Baptist Church Claims. 

just what the nineteenth number of 'The Tracts for the Times' 
declares it to be; and sanctification was lost in the names of 
sacred persons, sacred things, and sacred places. All this was 
before the Papacy had begun to blazon its triple crown, or to 
set its feet upon the necks of kings/' 

There is the historic proof that among these corrupt churches 
this doctrine, baptismal salvation, was gaining ground. 

Again, I wish to call your attention to a short statement from 
Dr. Lynd, upon the design of baptism, page 32: "We can not be 
figuratively sprinkled or poured into Christ's death, or into 
the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; but we 
can be figuratively immersed into both." * And, again, he says 
[page 41]: "He who holds that the death of Christ is a real 
atonement for sin, and the procuring cause of salvation ; that 
justification is by faith alone; and that this is the only right- 
eousness in w r hich we can meet the claims of the divine law 
and its penalty, is not likely to go astray when he asserts the 
necessity of baptism to salvation." Thus showing that Dr. 
Lynd understands that this salvation, or washing away of 
sins in baptism, is figurative and declarative, and that the real 
justification is by faith, or, as he expresses it very strongly, 
when he says, "faith alone" 

I wish your attention now to some points in a former speech. 
The question of communion was pressed very earnestly by my 
friend ; that we are not the church of Christ, because we are wrong 
as regards the Lord's table — the Lord's Supper. He continues 
to appeal to the passage, that he ought to have understood bet- 
ter, in the 1st Cor. llth chapter : " Let a man examine him- 
self, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup." 
He certainly knows that this was addressed to the church at 
Corinth. All the members of the church had been baptized ; 
they were in church fellowship. This has no reference to 
those who were not members of the church, whether Chris- 
tians or not, communing. The repeated assertion that we ex- 



Elder (Ray's Jsfinth Address. 443 

elude from the Lord's table those that God had received — 
those whom we admit to be God's children. I deny that wo 
exclude any one. We invite every child of God to the 
Lord's table, according to the Lord's plan ; and as the Lord's 
table is in his kingdom, and in church fellowship, we invite 
them into the house of the Lord, and then to the table accord- 
ing to the rule of the Saviour. The Saviour himself has - 
made the way somewhat narrow. I do not complain because 
of it. He said, Matt. vii. 14: " Because strait is the gate, and 
narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that 
find it." But my friend upon this subject would say, "wide 
is the way; let all be admitted to the communion, whether 
converted or not ; let them come to the Lord's table if they 
think themselves worthy, and take a notion to eat and drink ; 
let them examine themselves ! " Suppose the Dr. had old Brig- 
ham Young here, and the prophet should say, " I will look into 
my heart a little ; I am a very good provider, and a clever 
gentleman, and I will go to the gentleman's communion," and 
according to my friend's open communion system he must com- 
mune ! And so with every other man of like character advoca- 
ting heresy of any sort. I don t indorse such perversion or mis- 
conception of the design of the Lord's table. In this connection 
I will read upon this subject, showing the views of Moses Lard 
in reference to the Lord's table. In his Quarterly for 1863, 
page 50, he says : " We should delight to see the day come 
when the Baptists would relax a little their austere and un- 
hallowed rules on this point, and when we and they at least 
should enjoy the pleasure of cultivating more fraternal rela- 
tions over the loaf and cup !" He wants to commune with the 
Baptists in a kind of courtship, cultivating friendly relations, 
when God Almighty has said: "Do this" — not in remem- 
brance of thy mother, not in remembrance of thy brother or 
friend, but — "in remembrance of me." Whenever you com- 
mune for friendship, to show your love to friends, you have 



444 (Baptist Church Claims. 

failed to discern the Lord's body; and you are guilty of 
idolatry in the sight of the living God. We ought to under- 
stand what we are doing when we approach the Lord's table : 
it is to "show the Lord's death till he comes," not to show Chris- 
tian fellowship, not to show even church fellowship. Jesus 
Christ in that upper room invited no one there, except that little 
band already in fellowship in that primary organization. Then 
it is unnecessary to waste any more time on the subject. We 
simply wish to obey the commands of Christ. Dear friends, 
I can not find one example where communion was held with 
those not in fellowship in any of the apostolic churches. This 
is a modern innovation, gotten up, it seems, for favor with the 
world. 

But, then, my friend made himself very merry over some 
syllogisms he got up in regard to repentance, and I believe 
I have the leading idea. First, he says spiritual life is com- 
menced in faith ; that faith is the commencement of spiritual life 
— from Dr. Jeter. Second, repentance is a part of spiritual life; 
therefore, faith is the beginning of repentance. Now, I will sim- 
ply state the Dr. has made a mistake, and his syllogism is 
wrong, because his minor premise is false. I call his atten- 
tion to the fact that repentance is unto spiritual life, in order 
to it. This is found in Acts xi. 18 : "Then hath God also to 
the Gentiles granted repentance unto life," ten metanoian edd- 
ken eis zoen. Here, then, we find this repentance according 
to his rendering in Acts ii. 38, is repentance in order to spir- 
itual life, unto life. And now I will construct a syllogism, if 
the gentleman will give attention to it. First, heart faith — 
you remember that is almost a Bible expression, for it is faith 
with the heart — heart faith is the commencement of spiritual life 
— Jeter. 

Second, repentance is in order to spiritual life — Acts xi. 18 — 
therefore, repentance is in order to, heart faith. There is a 
syllogism based upon truth, upon the facts of the case. No 



Elder (Ray's JVinth Address. 445 

man can have faith with the heart, whose faith has not been 
superinduced by repentance. The Dr. says, sorrow is before 
faith; that faith is the source of all true obedience; therefore faith 
is the source of repentance. Now, there is a sophism lurking in 
that syllogism. I will just give him another — just add a word 
or two and make the same one look a little singular. First, 
the source of all true obedience embraces hearing the word and re- 
ceiving the truth. Second, faith is the source of all our obedience; 
ilierefore, faith is the source of hearing the word ! Then accord- 
ing to that syllogism you have faith before you have heard 
the w r ord! It is just as true as his ; and it is reduced to an 
absurdity. So his syllogism falls to the ground. 

In reference to the order, my friend has not noticed those 
passages of Scripture critically, to show why they were in the 
wrong order. I did not base my argument simply because 
one is named before the other. He has mistaken the argu- 
ment. I stated that one is mentioned in order to the other. 
"Ye repented not afterward that ye might believe." He has not 
examined this testimony of Jesus. This is the testimony of 
Jesus ; and if I am wrong, Jesus and the apostles are wrong. 
We are in splendid company. Because we hold the order in 
which they preached, the gentleman is opposing us ! Yes, be- 
cause we are following Christ ! ! That is the ridiculous atti- 
tude in w T hich he finds himself. 

He says, I ought to notice John iii. 5, where baptism comes 
before the birth of the Spirit. He has not proved that born 
of water there means baptism. And if it does, I wish to know 
how it is ; and because, my friend says, Christian baptism be- 
gan on the day of Pentecost, and this was before ! Jesus spoke 
of something which existed at that time ; so his whole theory 
of setting up the kingdom falls to the ground. He says that 
there was no Christian kingdom or baptism at that time. Let 
him try again. 

But, then, he says (Eph. ii. 20), concerning the foundation 



446 (Baptist Church Claims. 

of apostles and prophets. But he does not believe that those 
prophets were Old Testament prophets. So his argument is 
worthless so far as that is concerned. That is what he said in 
a former discussion. Here, then, according to his own testi- 
mony, he has made an argument of no force. The apostles 
were made repositories of the oracles of God, and they quoted 
from the prophets and incorporated the doctrine of the proph- 
ets with their own teachings. The plan of salvation held by 
the prophets was a part of the foundation. 

But, my friend says, the Spirit of God never tells a man he 
is pardoned, if the gospel says he is not. He refers to Mark 
xvi. 16. Well, I agree to that. I have shown that when one 
believes in Christ, the Spirit of God says he has eternal life. 
It tells the truth. When one is baptized, that will not take 
eternal life away from him. If he has really believed, through 
faith, as Mr. Campbell said in regard to Paul's sins, they are 
really pardoned, and formally washed away in baptism. That 
is, as Dr. Lynd would say, figurative salvation in baptism — not 
the real. Salvation is by grace, through faith, not of ourselves, 
but it is the gift of God. 

But Komans vi. 17, he emphasized obeying from the 
heart the gospel, and then being made free from the law of sin 
and death ; and, yet, when I pressed him, he says, I did not 
say it was baptism ! What do you mean when you say obey- 
ing from tlw heart f The exercise of faith is with the heart ; 
and obedience growing out of that, obeying from the heart. 
Mr. Campbell's translation of that passage is : "But thanks to 
God, that although ye were the slaves of sin, yet ye have 
obeyed from the heart the mould of doctrine unto which ye 
were delivered. And being made free from sin, ye have be- 
come the slaves of righteousness." — [In the Living Oracles,] 

The Dr. said (Acts x. 43-47) that the gift of the Spirit on 
that occasion, at the house of Cornelius, before baptism, did 
not prove that these Gentiles were children of God, but it was 



Elder (Ray's JVinth Address. 447 

simply bestowed in order to show to the Jewish disciples that 
the Gentiles might come in ! If he w T ill read, he will find in 
the prophecy of Joel, that the gift of the Holy Ghost, the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost, the miraculous administration and 
power of the Holy Spirit, was to be bestowed upon none but 
those who were servants, not enemies of God. 

The kingdom before the day of Pentecost. The Dr. presents 
several difficulties. First, the foundation : that before the 
day of Pentecost the Dr. declares that Jesus was not a suita- 
ble foundation for the kingdom until after he died upon the 
cross ! Well, I find it is said in 1st Cor. x. 4, that the Israel- 
ites all drank of the "same spiritual drink ; for they drank of 
that spiritual Rock that followed them ; and that Rock was 
Christ. " This is the very same word in the original, transla- 
ted rock in Matt. xvi. 18, "Petra en ho Christos" There, in 
the same language and construction with that in Matt. xvi. 18, 
and with the same gender, rock (Petra) was Christ. Tell me 
he was not a suitable foundation ! when he called himself the 
foundation, and when Peter confessed him as this rock right 
there ! And yet he tells you he was not a suitable foundation. 
His argument indicates to me that he is drifting toward 
Unitarianism — denying the full divinity of the Son of God. 

Second — Then the Dr. said, if the church was set up before 
the day of Pentecost, that it was without a priest. Why, 
dear friends, when we take God's word we find Jesus was a 
"priest forever, after the order of Melchisedec," the only Me- 
diator between an offended God and offending men. Men 
were saved under the old dispensation by what — atonement ? 
Don't he know that Jesus Christ is represented as the "Lamb 
slain from the foundation of the world'* — a priest, then, for- 
ever? But, he says, he was not a priest on earth. Of course he 
was not a priest after the Aaronic order upon earth, officiating 
according to the law. But when we examine the connection, 
we find that he is not a priest under the Mosaic dispensation, 



448 (Baptist Church Claims. 

after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedec. 
I contend that Jesus Christ was the officiating priest in the 
salvation of Abel, and will be forever the priest ; for if he 
was not, then none in the Old Testament are saved ; because, 
if they were, they were saved without a priest to atone for 
them. He is drifting to the doctrine of Unitarianism, it 
seems to me. 

Tliird — Another of the Dr.'s objections is, thai; the kingdom 
was without the Holy Spirit, if it was set up prior to Pente- 
cost. But if he will examine John xx. 22, he will find that 
the Saviour breathed on them and said : "Receive ye the Holy 
Ghost." When they fir^t believed they were children of God, 
they were born of the Spirit. And when it is said (Luke 
vii. 39) that the Holy Spirit was not yet given, it was the 
baptism of the Holy Spirit that was to lead them to all truth, 
to enable them to speak with tongues, and give them full in- 
spiration. 

Fourth — The Dr. said, if the church was set up before Pen- 
tecost, it was without the gospel in fact. Well, dear brethren, 
it was gospel enough to save poor sinners from the Devils 
hell. Jesus said, he had on earth power to forgive sins. He 
said to the man sick with palsy : "Thy sins be forgiven thee." 
To the poor woman : "Thy faith hath saved thee." Yet, the 
Dr. tells you that he didn't have the gospel. His death was 
preached — Jesus told them he was going to die on the cross. 
As I have quoted, the efficacy of that death extended back to 
the beginning. 

Fifth — But my friend says, that they were without a king- 
dom ; that Jesus was not King until the day of Pentecost ! 
The Bible tells me that nothing was made only by Him. All 
the universe was made by the omnipotent power of Jesus ; yet 
he was not a King ! He was called a King when he was born 
in the manger of Bethlehem. He was called a King when he 
rode in triumph into the city of Jerusalem. When before 



Elder (Ray's .Ninth Address. 449 ' 

Pilate's bar, he confessed he was a King. Pilate accosted him, 
"Art thou a king, then," and Jesus answered, "To this end was 
I born and for this cause came I into the world. " But it is 
hardly necessary to pursue this further. We have shown that 
he had the power of heaven and earth before the day of Pen- 
tecost, when he gave the great commission under which the 
church is laboring to-day. He claimed all power of heaven 
and earth. What more power did he have on Pentecost? All 
this talk about being coronated on the day of Pentecost, which 
the gentleman indulges in, he does not find in his Bible. 
That is part of the Bethany dialect. 

Again, the Dr. says, there are two kingdoms, then, if the 
kingdom was up before Pentecost. Yes, there were two king- 
doms, one political, and one religious. If you are a loyal 
citizen of this state, you are in a political organization ; and 
if you belong to the kingdom of Christ, you obey the laws of 
that kingdom. They do not come in conflict with each other. 
Paul was obedient to the Jewish law long after the day of 
Christ. I have the testimony here of God's word : " The law 
and the prophets were until John ; since that time the king- 
dom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." 
Then again, "for all the prophets and the law prophesied 
until John." Then again, " from the days of John the Baptist, 
until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the 
violent taketh it by force." 

But I wish to advance another argument — one more, my 
ninth. The Baptists possess the Bible characteristics of the true 
church or kingdom of Jesus Christ, because they have passed through 
the wilderness of obscurity. No other church upon the earth 
has ever passed through such a period of history. The church 
of Rome mounted upon the scarlet beast, with those frightful 
words of terror on her forehead, was never secreted or hid in 
the wilderness, but her history is emblazoned on the pages of . 
every historian. It is treasured up in the archives of the 



450 (Baptist Church Claims. 

nations. Also, we have the plain and direct history of every 
other denomination, except the Baptists. No man can tell 
their headship unless he goes to Jesus. And up to this time 
my friend has not told you who was the founder of the 
Baptist church. I think he had the temerity to say they did 
not have an existence before 1522, yet he don't prove it. 1 
defy him to prove it. It is not in history, and he can not find it 
so stated by any authentic historian. He has made a state- 
ment and I call upon him to retract or prove it. There is not 
a word that will indicate such a state of things, that Baptists 
had no existence prior to the time stated. If the gentleman 
has the proof, he don't give it. I want the proof in denying 
our claims, but he don't take time to give the proof! But he 
sets himself up as a man of greater authority than Alexander 
Campbell. He reminds me of a small boy who sometimes gets 
his father's clothes on and struts about and imagines himself 
larger than his father! It seems the gentleman aims to get 
above Alexander Campbell in point of authority in these 
great matters. But, then, to the proof [Revelations xii. 14] : 
"And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that 
she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is 
nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the 
face of the serpent." And again [Revelations xii. 6] : " And 
the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place 
prepared by God, that they should feed her there a thousand 
two hundred and three score days." Mr. Orchard, in his his- 
tory, page 61, says: "In 412, the Baptists were ban- 
ished as heretics. In 413, Innocent sent letters of advice 
to various ministers. In the same year, the Baptists, for 
rebaptizing, were sentenced to death. In 416, a Council at 
Mela, accursed all those who denied forgiveness to accompany 
infant baptism, and in 418, a Council, at Carthage, enforced 
the same curse." 

It is then a historic fact that these ancient Baptists were 



Elder (Ray's JVinth Address. 451 

punished in that early time. But I wish to call your attention, 
now, to the testimony of Mr. Brown upon the subject. The 
gentleman made a statement that Mr. Brown, the editor of the 
Keligious Encyclopedia, was against us on this important 
subject. [Page 188] : "It has been asserted that the Baptists 
originated in Germany, about the year 1522, at the beginning 
of the Keformation. It is true that no denomination of 
Protestants can trace the origin of its present name further 
back than about the time of the Keformation; and most of 
them have originated since that period. And it appears to be 
true that the name of Baptists, by which these people have 
since been known, was then first assumed, probably in oppo- 
sition to that of Anabaptists, with which their enemies were 
continually reproaching them."— [Time Expired.] 



DR. LUCAS' NINTH REPLY. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen — My friend has just quoted a passage that I 
have marked, and which I have before quoted to sustain ex- 
actly what I have said with regard to the Baptist church and 
its remote origin. In this connection I will read, because 
the matter is fresh in your minds. "It has been asserted that 
the Baptists originated in Germany, about the year 1522." 
That is pretty near what I said, is it not? "In the year 1522, 
at the beginning of the Keformation. It is true that no de- 
nomination of Protestants can trace the origin of its present 
name further back than to the time of the Keformation." No 
church can trace its name back further than the Reformation, 
according to that statement, "and most of them have origina- 
ted since that period. It appears to be true that the name of 
Baptists, by which these people have since been called, was then 
first assumed, probably in opposition to that of Anabaptists, 
with which their enemies were continually reproaching them." 
Now, here is authority upon this subject, and I venture the 
assertion that he can not find the history of his Baptist church 
beyond that point. He can not do it. It has no history be- 
yond that point. 

But we come to notice now the criticisms referred to. The 
gentleman says that President Cook sustains him. Well, I 
have the pleasure of saying that President Smith sustains me 
in the position that I have taken upon these passages. Now, 
I will come out one ahead, for not only President Smith but 
Dr. Hackett, the Baptist translator for the Bible Union, also 



(Dr. Lucas ; Ninth (Reply. 453 

sustains me, especially on the 2d of the Acts of the Apostles. 
I will read that, so we will be a little in advance on this criti- 
cism, and the ideas taught in the passage upon which the con- 
troversy has arisen. Dr. Hackett says : "eis aphesin dmartion, 
in order to forgiveness of sins, we connect naturally with both 
the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive and object 
which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It en- 
forces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclu- 
sion of the other." 

Mr. Kay — Let me have that book for a moment. 

JVIn. Lucas — I will, Sir. That is what Dr. Hackett says 
upon the question, and we have given you an example from 
Euripedes, that the gentleman has never yet shown that our 
position was false, as far as our criticism is concerned. We 
gave you the rule ia Kiihner's Greek Grammar, sustaining the 
position that we took. We stated further, that the form of 
expression is very frequent. I gave you at least one example. 
I could give you a hundred. I say, "Here is a contractor, 
whose business is that of building houses." He has a number 
of hands. He says to these hands : "All of you go, and let 
each man bring his tools." Now, then, I say that, "let 
each man bring his tools," embraces just as many as "all of 
you" together. The only difference is, the one refers to one 
individual, while the other verb and command refers to them 
collectively. That is the only difference, and I could give you 
hundreds of examples of this kind, and illustrate precisely this 
point in the Acts of the Apostles. So much for criticism. 
We are willing it should go to the record just as you have it. 

With regard to the charge he made in respect to the Lord's 
Supper, and the passage, "Le^ a man examine himself, and so 
let him eat," while we say that this language was addressed to 
the church at Corinth, there is no controversy about the per- 
sons addressed ; but the difficulty with my friend is that 
he says that there are persons who are children of God, and 



454 (Baptist Church Claims. 

yet not in fellowship with him. Paul addressed children of 
God. My friend says that there are children of God just as 
good as, he is — to whom Paul would say, "Let a man examine 
himself, and so let him eat." But my friend says, "No, I will 
examine you, and tell you not to eat." There is the position 
of the gentleman. He admits these persons are children of 
God, and just as good as he is ; but instead of allowing those 
w 7 hom he acknowledges to be children of God to examine 
themselves and so to eat, he and his church examine them 
and tell them not to eat. That is the position he occupies. 
But he is not only wrong in regard to some who are not con- 
nected with his church, but also with respect to persons who 
come into it as he and his brethren came into the church, for 
they will not partake of the Lord's Supper with all the Bap- 
tists, as we have shown you. Here are the different orders of 
Baptists, as the "Kegular Baptists," the "Particular Baptists, 3 ' 
the "Seventh-Day Baptists," and the "Free-Will Baptists," 
whom his church does not invite to the Lord's table. He will 
not commune with those, and yet they came into it according to 
the plan of my friend, he being the judge, although they have 
taken precisely the same steps. But even his own church of 
the same faith and order take the position — at least many of 
them — that the members of the church at LaGrange, when 
they happen to visit the church at Canton, have no right to 
commune at the Lord's table with the church at Canton. 
Many of them — if I have not been incorrectly informed — have 
taken time and again this position, and even our worthy friend 
President Cook has taken this position, as I have been in- 
formed, in regard to members of one church communing with 
another. Well, consequently, we say that he departs from the 
rule as presented in the word of God. While the Bible says, 
"Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat," they say, 
"We will examine you, and you shall not eat," There is a 
departure here. With regard to the design of the Lord's 



(Dr. Lucas' JVinth (Reply. 455 

Supper, we think that it is to commemorate the death and suf- 
fering of the Lord Messiah. We think we understand that 
fully. I would like to have your attention to this matter. 

Moderator — Go ahead. 

Mr. Lucas — But you are drawing more attention than I 
am. I simply say in regard to Pres. Cook, I do not know 
whether it is so or not. I simply heard it. I state that is 
the position taken by many of his church. 

Pres. Cook — Perhaps it w T ould not be out of place to ex- 
plain my position, inasmuch as the gentleman has made the 
charge. 

Mr. Lucas — Not at all, if you do not take it out of my 
time. 

Pres. Cook — I wish to give you the benefit of all you 
have heard. 

Mr. Lucas — Yes. 

Pres. Cook — My position is that the Lord's Supper is a 
church ordinance, that it is a religious family matter, like the 
Passover under the old Jewish dispensation — and that the 
church at LaGrange has no right to call a pastor or to exercise 
discipline in the Canton church. That a member of the La- 
Grange church has no right to go there and demand as a 
right to commune with that people. If he enjoys that privi- 
lege, it is simply a courtesy that may be extended to him ; 
or, in other words, we believe that everything should have its 
place. 

Mr. Lucas — We are not so far wrong after all. I am glad 
to have a witness testifying to our position. Now, here is the 
Lord's table ; and we affirm that the Lord's people have a 
right to the Lord's table. If they have a right to the Lord's 
table, they have the right to demand the exercise and enjoy- 
ment of that right, as children of God, in the Lord's house, at 
the Lord's table ; but, as you have heard, the position which 
the gentleman occupies is that they have no right to demand 



456 (Baptist Church Claims. 

it. If my friend, or his church, extend them the courtesy, 
why then they can eat ; but this is in direct contravention to 
this rule presented by the apostle, when Paul says, "Let a man 
examine himself and so let him eat. " But the position of the 
gentleman is that they can not eat. We will examine you, 
they say, and you can not eat, unless we extend to you the 
courtesy of invitation. You have no right at all to be allowed 
at the Lord's table, though you are the children of God ac- 
cording to the position of his church. If we extend an invita- 
tion to you to eat, you may ; but if we do not, you may not — 
you can not. It is a "direct innovation." The inspired apostle 
says : "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat." 

I did not get the syllogism of the gentleman, but I will say 
that if he will furnish it I will examine it. I did not get it 
as he stated it, but I want to call your attention to the syllo- 
gisms again to which your minds were invited on my part. 
My friend did not get them exactly. I submit them again, and 
every one who has ever studied logic will see at once that the 
gentleman's remarks with regard to the premises from which 
we endeavored to draw our deduction show that the gentleman 
was mistaken upon the question. Now, the premises that we 
present is this, spiritual life is commenced in faith. That he 
believes — is indorsed by Mr. Jeter. Mr. Jeter affirms 
that spiritual life is commenced in faith. Repentance is 
essential to spiritual life, therefore repentance is commenced 
in faith. That is the first syllogism. The second one is this: 
All true obedience embraces repentance. Faith is the source 
of all true obedience, therefore faith is the source of repentance. 
These are the syllogisms as presented by me in this discussion. 
And when I come to examine Dr. Lynd, I find that he 
indorses precisely what Mr. Jeter has affirmed here, in regard 
to faith being the source of all spiritual life, and of all true 
obedience; for he affirms, as we have before quoted, that if a 
man believes, he will repent, showing that his faith antedates 



(Dr. Lucas' JNivth (Reply . 457 

his repentance, and that the repentance follows the effect of 
the existence of true faith in his heart. That is the language of 
Dr. Lynd, upon the question. But we will call your attention 
to a passage from Dr. Lynd, in order to show that the position 
assumed by him, and the quotations made from Dr, Lynd, 
were not correct, and that he was not representing Dr. Lynd 
properly upon the subject. He quotes from the 41st page of 
Dr. Lynd's work, on the "Design of Baptism/ 1 and reads a few 
lines, in which he embraced this declaration, "that justification 
is by faith alone," and we call your attention to the fact that 
he embodied in this declaration baptism, that is, submission or 
subjection to the Lord Messiah, and stated that when he used 
the term faith, and that the believer was justified by faith, that 
he desired that it should be understood throughout this essay 
that he embraced this obedience, that it was an inherent 
element of faith that justifieth. We call your attention to 
the language of Dr. Lynd here, where my friend stopped. 
We will begin to read, however, the passage that he 
read: "He who holds that the death of Christ is a real 
atonement for sin, and the procuring cause of salvation, that 
justification is by faith alone, and that that is the only right- 
eousness in which we can meet the claim of the divine law and 
its penalties, is not likely to go astray when he asserts the 
necessity of baptism to salvation." Now, the gentleman read 
that far, I will read a little farther. 

Whether we can understand it fully or not, it is a pre- 
cious promise. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved." This is the very next utterance that Dr. Lynd gives, 
that " he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Right 
here, you see, almost the entire opposite page is taken up pre- 
senting this very same truth, that it here presents; showing 
that this baptism and subjection to Christ is necessary in order 
to the enjoyment of the promised salvation and remission of 
sins. In fact, I never saw a work published of the same size, 



458 (Baptist Church Claims. 

upon the design of baptism, where it is asserted as often in 
some form or other, that baptism is for the remission of sins, as 
is asserted here in this very work of Dr. Lynd's. But, he calls 
our attention again, or rather he wants our attention to John 
iii. 5 — not again — for he never has mentioned it so far as any 
recollection serves me in this discussion before, and then he 
refers to Eph. ii. 19. In John it is affirmed, except a man be 
born of water, and of the spirit, he can not enter into the king- 
dom of God ; and the religious world understand the water 
here to refer to baptism, and we can give you a number of 
Baptist authorities upon this question, were it necessary, as 
McLean, Orchard's History, and I might go on and name, or, as 
before stated, quote a number of others, if it were necessary ; 
but the religious world generally say that it has reference to 
baptism, and here it is mentioned as in this order ; and if, as 
the gentleman claims this order, it has any force, then we say 
that baptism is before the operation of the spirit. In regard 
to Ephesians, we say, and said in the former discussion, we do 
not believe the prophets there referred to were Old Testa- 
ment prophets. So I have stated, and so I state now. I think 
the apostle here has reference to a different class of prophets 
than my friend has reference to, and he affirms that the passage 
refers to Jewish prophets, and because the apostles are men- 
tioned first, therefore they come first. They do come first accord- 
ing to this argument ; then the apostles are older than the pro- 
phets, and we present this as an argumentum ad hominem. It is a 
good argument to him, and he ought to consider and to look 
at it closely. And now, he says, he does not believe that sim- 
ply from the fact that one is mentioned before the other that 
it does necessarily come first. He says the argument is not 
founded upon that at all, but it is founded upon this, that re- 
pentance unto life is necessary in order to the production of 
faith. This we deny. Now we come to a direct issue here. 
Let him prove it. We are prepared to meet the gentleman 



(Dr. Lucas* .Ninth '(Reply. 459 

upon that question. We aver that there is no repentance unto 
life, unto salvation, that it is not wrought by godly sorrow ; 
godly sorrow works repentance unto life that needeth not to 
be repented of, and we aver that this godly sorrow is the result 
of the office of faith upon the human heart ; the heart being 
purified by faith, the man becomes sorry for his sins. This 
godly sorrow is the result of the office of faith upon his heart ; 
and this godly sorrow, this faith that excites it, works repent- 
ance unto salvation that needeth not to be repented of. As 
Dr. Lynd says, a man who thus thoroughly believes will re- 
pent. 

Mr. Ray — I deny his position squarely upon this subject. 

Mr. Lucas — But he that believes, has eternal life." We 
deny that the passage teaches that by faith alone, or faith on- 
ly, that a man wins eternal life, and the passage does not teach 
it ; but we believe by faith we obtain eternal life, but not by 
faith alone. There is the issue. It is not whether it is by faith, 
but whether it is by faith alone. We believe that the farmer 
toils by faith. If he had no faith, he would not work. He 
farms by faith, but not by faith alone. Faith alone would 
bring into his garner no crop. He farms by faith, but not by 
faith alone. He enjoys the fruits of the earth by faith, but 
not by faith alone. He has to work a little, in order that his 
faith be profitable. So, here we obtain eternal life by faith, but 
not by faith alone. Paul affirms that when the individual obeys 
from the heart the form of doctrine, that he is made free from 
sin, and becomes the servant of righteousness, and has his fruit 
unto holiness, and in the end everlasting life — he becomes the 
servant of righteousness. John says : " He that doeth righteous- 
ly is righteous, even as he is righteous becomes the servant of 
righteousness, doing righteousness has his fruit unto holiness, 
and the end everlasting life." It is not faith alone, but it is faith 
and doing righteousness according to these passages of Scrip- 
ture, and this faith is dead without works according to the state- 



460 (Baptist Church Claims. 

merit of the inspired apostle ; just as the body without the 
spirit is dead, even so faith without works is dead also. This 
is the language of James. 

But as to Jesus and the foundation. We state that Jesus 
entered not into the foundation until he became a tried stone 
— until he was tried. The gentleman has talked around the 
question, but he has not affirmed in square terms that he was 
the foundation, and the church was built upon him before he 
became a tried stone. This stone that the builders rejected 
after he had been tried, as we have seen, became the head of the 
corner, and when he was tried the church was built upon him 
in accordance with the declaration of the Saviour to Peter, 
when* he says, "Upon this rock will I — will I build my church, 
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." And in 
accordance with the declaration in Ephesians, the church was 
built upon this foundation, the one new man, one new body, 
and it became one new church — was established upon this foun- 
dation when the middle wall of partition was taken away, by 
Jesus nailing it to the cross. It was not, then, built before this 
time, but it was after this time. If after this time, the gen- 
tleman's idea with regard to the establishment of the kingdom 
of Jesus Christ is false, and stands opposed to the teaching of 
the word of God. 

But, the gentleman says our position looks to Unitarianism. 
Well, dear friends, it certainly was necessary for the gentle- 
man to tell you of this, or you would never have known 
it. We state that Jesus was both God and man. He was as 
truly man as he was truly God, and he was as divine as God 
himself on the one hand, and was as human as his mother on 
the other. He was God-man — the "Logos" which was with 
God, and was God, and was made manifest in the flesh. This 
is our position upon that subject, as we have stated in the 
hearing of this people, and labored to prove, as no doubt many 
of you will recollect. We have, we think, established from 



(Dr. Lucas' Ninth (Reply. 461 

the word of God the glorious character and divine nature of 
the Son of God — divine as God himself on the one hand, and 
human as his mother on the other, in the relation that he sus- 
tained to his mother ; and hence he was a proper and perfect 
mediator, who could lay hold of humanity with one hand, and 
lay hold with the other upon the eternal Father, and was 
thoroughly and perfectly a mediator between God and man. 

My friend quotes, "the law and the prophets were until 
John, since then the kingdom of God is preached." Well, 
we have had this matter up time and again. The gentleman 
has admitted the apostles were not called till after John was 
in prison, that Jesus never gave to them the kingdom till he 
went away, and consequently the kingdom was not established 
in the days of John when he preached the kingdom ; and if 
he preached that before he was in prison, and the apostles 
were not called until after he was in prison, hence, at this time, 
the kingdom looked to the future. Since John the kingdom 
of God was preached as at hand, and the word of God posi- 
tively declares that it was preached as yet to come. And 
Jesus, in the character of the nobleman in the parable, went 
to receive his kingdom, and did not receive it until he went 
away, and he did not go away till after he was dead, and 
buried, and rose again ; consequently, he did not receive his 
kingdom till after that time, and it is perfectly useless for my 
friend to be talking about the kingdom being established be- 
fore that time, unless he is willing to affirm in positive contra- 
diction to the language of the word of God, that he received 
his kingdom and established it before he went away. But, 
with regard to the priesthood of the Saviour, it is positively 
asserted that he was not a priest on earth, but he was made a 
priest after the power of an endless life by the oath of the eter- 
nal Father — he Avas made a priest after the power of an endless 
life. — [Time Expired.] 



ELDER RAY'S TENTH ADDRESS. 



I wish to read, as I had well nigh forgotten, a statement in 
answer to a little reflection upon my motives at Blandinville, 
made a day or two ago. It is from the pastor of the church 
there, a very devoted and worthy brother, " This is to cer- 
tify, that the statement that .the Campbellites hired Elder D. 
B. Ray, at five dollars per day, to remain in Blandinville until 
Dr. Lucas came, is false in every particular. Brother Ray 
remained two weeks after the discussion was to have opened 
waiting for the coming of Dr. Lucas. It is true that T. H. 
Goodnight handed me, at his own suggestion, twenty dollars, 
which I gave to Brother Ray, but Brother Ray had nothing 
to do with the arrangement. J. H. Delano, Pastor Blandin- 
ville Baptist Church." 

Here is another statement. It is made by a very worthy 
brother, named James R. Ward, who lives at Blandinville. " I 
saw Brother Goodnight to-day, and I asked him whether that 
was paid on demand, or at the request of the Baptists, or as a 
voluntary offer by them ? He said it was a voluntary offer on 
their part ; and that he paid the twenty dollars to Elder De- 
lano, and not to you. The church requested you to come here, 
and was bound for your payment. The transaction, what- 
ever it was, was with the two churches, as I verily believe." 

I would not have read these letters ; but at my own ex- 
pense this discussion is to be published — and because it would 
have gone into the book as a reflection on my motives. I 
think the Dr. has been erroneously informed. 

Now, then, in relation to Dr. Hackett. Let me read a little 



Elder (Ray's Tenth Address. 463 

in this connection : In his commentary on Acts xxii. 16 : "Arise, 
and be baptized, and wash away thy sins" Dr. Hackett says : "It 
answers to eis dphesin amartion in ii. 38, i. e., submit to the 
rite in order to be forgiven. In both passages baptism is rep- 
resented as having this importance or efficacy, because it is the 
sign of the repentance and faith which are the conditions of sal- 
vation."' Thus we see that even Dr. Hackett does not agree 
in doctrine with the gentleman, whatever may be the strong 
expressions made by him, as also made by others. Dr. Lynd 
says, when he ascribes salvation to baptism he does not do so 
in the same sense as when he ascribes it to faith. But before 
the Dr. sat down, he stated his belief that salvation or eternal 
life was not by faith alone. He says : ' 'He that has faith only/' 
— I understand by that when one truly believes in Christ with 
all his heart — " he is still destitute of spiritual life, or eternal 
life ;" and he said, "it was by faith and works of righteousness." 
So I understood him ; I think that is his statement. In reply, 
I read Romans iv. 3-6 : " For what saith the Scripture ? Abra- 
ham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteous- 
ness. Now, to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned 
of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but be- 
lieveth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted 
for righteousness. Even as David also describe th the bles- 
sedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness 
without works." That is, so far as justification, in the sight 
of God is concerned, it is without works. There is one more 
passage of Scripture I desire to quote, which ought to satisfy 
my friend. I read from Paul's Epistle to Titus iii. 5: "Not 
by works of righteousness which we have done, but according 
to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and 
renewing of the Holy Ghost ; Which he shed on us abundant- 
ly through Jesus Christ our Saviour." Here is the difference 
between Paul and my friend. My friend says, faith and right- 
eousness which we have done ; Paul says, not by works of right- 



464 (Baptist Church Claims. 

eousness which we have done, but by the washing of regeneration, 
and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. He has contended, it seems 
to me, against the statement of God's precious book — his holy- 
word. 

When my time expired, I had just begun to read the testi- 
mony that he had depended upon to prove that the Baptists 
originated in the year 1522. It is not so stated, and no history is 
found to that effect. The writer here says that some have so 
stated — not speaking of any writers, not even quoting a report 
upon the subject. Now, I commence to read where he left 
off, as we both have read the same passage before, Religious 
Encyclopedia, page 188 : " It is not, however, the history of 
a name, but the prevalence of the principles, which is the 
just object of attention with the student of ecclesiastical his- 
tory. " Mr, Brown had simply stated that the name, as we now 
use it, did not extend back before the Reformation, but the 
name Anabaptists did — the very same class of people. Mr. 
Brown continues : " The Baptists do not pretend that the 
primitive saints were called Baptists, but that all the primi- 
tive Christians were what would now be called by this name ; 
and that there always has been a people on earth, from the 
introduction of Christianity, who have held the leading senti- 
ment by which they now are, and always have been, distin- 
guished, is a point which they most firmly believe, and 
undertake to prove." So it turns out that the Baptists, ac- 
cording to this authority, believe that their church has stood 
from the time of Christ until now. The author says, page 
20, of the Baptist Martyrs : " The Baptists, though for the 
most part of the poor of the world, rich in faith only, and un- 
known to fame, as were the primitive Christians, have yet, in 
almost all ages, had of their number, men of the most eminent 
learning and ability, who died as martyrs to the faith. From 
the time of Novatian, indeed, it has been customary with their 
adversaries to call the whole body by the name of its most 



Elder (Ray's Tenth Address, 465 

distinguished leader, as if they were a new sect, of which he 
was the originator. Thus the Cathari were called Novatians 
— then Paulicians — then Petrobrusians, Henricians, Josephists 
— then Arnoldists — Waldenses — Lollards — Mennonites ; nor 
were they ever permitted to bear their present name of Baptists 
until after their legal toleration in England, in 1668. Yet to 
them, as we have seen, belong all the inspired writers of the 
New Testament — the sources of our Christian literature — 
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Jude, Peter, and Paul 
himself, the accomplished pupil of Gamaliel." This is the 
testimony of the learned editor of the Encyclopedia. And 
Baptist Martyrs, page 17, the same writer has said, as quoted 
before: " That the Baptists have no difficulty whatever in 
tracing up their principles and their churches to the Apostolic 
age." I could quote further from this author, but it is not 
necessary. 

My friend has been harping a good deal upon Mr. Benedict. 
I call attention, now, to his testimony in favor of the succession 
and perpetuity of the Baptists. On page 935, he says : " Old 
School and Primitive Baptists are appellations so entirely out of 
place, that I can not, even as a matter of courtesy, use them 
without adding, so called, or some such expression. I have 
seen so much of the missionary spirit among the old Ana- 
baptists, Waldenses, and other ancient sects ; so vigorous and 
perpetual were the efforts of those Christians, whom we claim 
as Baptists in the early, middle and later ages, to spread the 
gospel in all parts of the world, among all nations and languages 
where they could gain access, that it is plain that those who 
merely preach up predestination, and do nothing, have no 
claim to be called by their name. The farther down I go into 
the regions of antiquity, more fully is the missionary character 
of all whom we denominate our sentimental brethren developed. 
Propagandism was their motto and their watchword. They 
seldom went alone, but two and two was the order of their 



466 (Baptist Church Claims. 

going out; and such was the ardor of their zeal in their 
hazardous vocations, that no ordinary obstacles could alarm 
their fears or impede their progress." 

Here we have the testimony of Benedict. Though he does 
not think the tracing of the succession necessary, and was not 
writing for the purpose of tracing it, yet he believes the facts 
existed ; and he stated that if the facts were disclosed, a very 
good succession could be made out. My friend gave a beauti- 
ful illustration in this connection, when he said, if he had the 
money he could buy the rolling mill in this town. But he 
would draw the conclusion that there was no money in the 
world because he, Dr. Lucas, did not happen to have it ! 
That would be a very strange conclusion. Now, because this 
man does not disclose the facts, therefore, the facts don't exist! 
If the Doctor's argument is worth anything, it proves that 
there is no money in the world, because Dr. Lucas has not got 
it! 

Again, p. 51, Benedict says : "Of the German Anabaptists 
nothing need to be stated as to their denominational character ; 
their name is their voucher for their dipping propensities, 
which runs back to a period so remote that the profoundest 
researches in antiquity can not ascertain their origin" — copy- 
ing almost verbatim from Mosheim. Mr. Benedict continues : 
"The other parties, of which some accounts will be given, 
viz., the followers of Peter de Bruis, Henry, Huss, Wickliffe, 
&c, as well as Waldo, all held to the same principles as those 
of an earlier date. Thus, we see the different companies lap- 
ped over each other, and covering the whole ground ; and 
notwithstanding all the persecutions, gibbets, and flames, to 
w T hich they were exposed, the interdicts, banishments and ex- 
ile, which were their never-ceasing portion, they continued in 
great numbers up to the time of the Reformation." Thus, 
according to Benedict, these ancient sects overlapped each 
other. He did not think it important to trace their succes- 



Elder (Ray's Tenth Address. 467 

sion, but he contends that the church stood to the very time 
when our friend said our church did commence ; and thus, by 
the help of Benedict and Dr. Lucas* admissions, we are able 
to establish the fact that our church has stood all the time. 
Right where Dr. Lucas could go no further, Benedict takes 
hold and makes out the succession, showing that the church, 
called ' 'Baptist" now, has stood all the time. 

But I wish to quote from the old history, Robinson's Eccle- 
siastical Researches, on this point. My friend quoted from 
Benedict's statement from Robinson. This work was publish- 
ed in 1792, I believe. It is an old English volume, with the 
long s'es. Robinson says, p. 55 : "During the first three cen- 
turies, Christian congregations, all over the East, subsisted in 
separate independent bodies, unsupported by government, 
and consequently without any secular powers over one anoth- 
er. All this time they were baptized churches" The old En- 
glish writers, instead of using the term Baptist, when they 
wished to speak of the Baptist churches, they said "Baptized 
congregations" Mr. Robinson continues: "And though all 
the fathers of the first four ages, down to Jerome, were of 
Greece, Syria and Africa, and though they give great num- 
bers of histories of the baptism of adults, yet there is not one 
record of the baptism of a child till the year 370, when Gala- 
tes, the dying son of Emperor Valens, was baptized by order 
of a monarch who swore he would not be contradicted." 
Then, again, we have the testimony of this writer on p. 126. 
He says : "In the end, Novatian formed a church, and was 
elected bishop. Great numbers followed his example all over 
the empire. Puritan churches were constituted, and flour- 
ished through the succeeding two hundred years. Afterward, 
when penal laws obliged them to lurk in corners, and worship 
God in private, they were distinguished by a variety of names, 
and a succession of them continued till the Reformation." 
Here is the proof that the succession of those driven out of 



468 (Baptist Church Claims. 

Italy about the year 425, when they moved to the wilderness 
surrounded by the Alpine mountains, had continued all the 
time. This is what is represented, as I understand it, by the 
beautiful symbol of the woman that fled into the wilderness. 
Page 510, Robinson's History, says : "Let it not seem romantic, 
if we suppose that [the] Waldenses, who, we know, studied the 
Revelation of John, thought themselves directed to retire, by 
God himself, to sequestered places ; for, by the New Testament 
prophet, he had said, "The woman fled into the wilderness, 
where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed 
•her there a thousand two hundred and three score days." 
Here we have the testimony of Mr. Robinson, the very one 
whom the gentleman has tried to array against us, proving the 
Baptist succession directly — that the Baptists have stood as the 
church of the living God. It has been proved, as certainly as 
God's eternal word is true, that He has a church on earth that 
has stood from the beginning ; and that it is the Baptist church 
there can be no sort of doubt in my mind. Then I wish to 
call your attention to some of my friend's objections to the 
claims of the Baptists. He states they are not the church of 
Christ, because they are wrong in their commencement. They 
have not the exact theory of the time of the setting up of the 
church ; and, therefore, they can not be the true church of the 
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ! Now, my friends, it looks a 
little strange that he should make such a charge. Has he not 
stated that there was a people of God all the time from Christ 
until now ; and yet, he says, they were in Babylon! On a for- 
mer occasion, he said : "Out of the visible kingdom of Christ 
there is no forgiveness." He don't believe in the invisible 
kingdom on earth ; he said a kingdom of Christians here — of 
saints ; otherwise, there is no forgiveness of sins. For if he gets 
a person s sins forgiven before they enter into the kingdom, 
then they are forgiven without the remission of sins, according 
to the Doctor s position, which he certainly will not hold. 



Elder (Ray's Tenth Address. 469 

Now, in regard to his position on the setting up of the king- 
dom, he has said that is correct, because the Saviour was asked 
by the disciples whether he would at this time restore the 
kingdom of Israel. I have the testimony of Dr. Adam 
Clarke, that they asked the question about the wresting of the 
authority of the government from the Eoman power. It was 
a political question. They were not talking of that spiritual 
kingdom of which the Saviour said : "My kingdom is not of 
this world." 

But, again, in connection with this, he spoke of that noble- 
man that w T as to go into a far country, to receive a kingdom, 
and return, according to the parable. Well, dear friends, the 
Saviour is that nobleman, and as the nobleman went to re- 
ceive a kingdom, it is certainly a perversion of the parable to 
say that he went to receive a kingdom, and returned on the 
day of Pentecost ! There are only two coinings of the Son of 
God represented in God's word. The first is when he came 
as a babe in the manger, and the second, when he is to come 
with all his holy angels. Now, to talk about this parable 
having reference to the setting up of the kingdom on the day 
of Pentecost, is talking that which is not consistent with God's 
word. The gentleman is mistaken on that point. He quotes 
Eph. ii. : The middle wall of partition being broken. Well, 
the Gentiles were not brought in on the day of Pentecost. 
Perhaps it was ten or twelve years after ; but, according to 
the gentleman's argument, this whole theory of Pentecost 
and the setting up of the church is overthrown. And he 
would have the house of Cornelius brought in at that time ! 
He has a strange interpretation, it seems to me. It does not 
help the gentleman to contradict the plain, unmistakeable pas- 
sages of God's word. 

But with reference to Luke xvi. 16, that presses him a 
little. He quotes it, and then stops a little short, scarcely 
half quoting it. He says, " the kingdom is preached," and 



470 (Baptist Church Claims. 

the latter part of it, " every man presseth into it." Well, he 
don't like that dear friends. Now, I want the Dr. to tell me 
whether the Saviour was mistaken when he said, men pressed 
into the kingdom f If he did not mean that they were pressing 
into the kingdom at that time, his doctrine is a positive de- 
nial of the language of the Son of God. 

Again, the Dr. says, we are not the true church, because 
we have not the right name ! The Dr. did not tell us what 
the right name of the church is. He did not tell us what the 
Bible name is. He undoubtedly believes it was the " Chris- 
tian church;" but, then, he has not given us any authority, 
in his meandering arguments, to show that the church was 
called the Christian church. The only authority that we 
have for the origin of that name with his church was less than 
fifty years ago. Certainly, his church was not named till a long 
time after the day of Pentecost ! It is strange to me that a 
man would seriously make such an argument as that merely 
upon the name. 

But, in regard to the proper foundation, he quotes from 
Mr. Orchard, where somebody says that the foundation, or 
the fundamental principle of these ancient Mennonites was 
the vital piety which was to be accepted by every member 
of the church. Where is the foundation, or vital piety ? Is 
it not the Son of God f When the writer makes such an expres- 
sion, we must not suppose he is denying that Christ was the 
foundation. Where is any vital piety outside of Christ, the 
foundation ? It does seem strange to me that he refers to Dr. 
Wayland, that Baptists could arrange their own rides and reg- 
ulations ! Dr. Wayland meant that we are not dependent upon 
other denominations for our order, as we take it directly 
from God's word, having the New Testament alone, neither more 
nor less, for our guide. This is the testimony of Mr. Wayland 
upon this subject, and the attempt to force him into any other 
position is certainly very erroneous. 



Elder (Ray's Tenth Address. 471 

But, the Dr. says, we are not the true church, because the 
Baptists are called a sect. That word is perverted from its 
original meaning in the New Testment. It now applies to 
every denomination in the sense in which Webster uses it ; 
and in the sense in which Webster uses it, Alexander Camp- 
bell calls his party a sect. Does that prove that they are not 
the kingdom of God upon earth ? I believe I will read just 
what he says : " That such profession would make a new sect, 
or rather revive an old one." — Page 308, Mill. Harb., vol. 2. 
The Reformer would make a new sect, or revive an old one ! 
Therefore, the gentleman's church can not be the true church 
of Christ, because Alexander Campbell called it a sect ! ! This 
is his own argument. 

But, let me advance in review of his arguments. He says, 
we are wrong in our theory of conversion. But it is the uni- 
versal practice in the gentleman's church, to take every mem- 
ber they can get from us, whether in good or bad standing ! 
It is the universal practice, I say, and upon our theory of 
conversion too. They do not want them converted over again. 
They are good enough, and when any one goes from us to 
them, they are ready to take him. He referred to some of 
the members of his church, who come to us from the Disci- 
ples. I am reliably informed that they professed conversion and 
regeneration independently of baptism. I deny that it is the 
custom of the Baptist denomination to receive members from 
his church, unless they profess that they were pardoned, in- 
dependent of immersion, not in the act of baptism. We do not 
do that, as charged. We usually immerse them, even when they 
profess conversion independent of the act of baptism. I never 
received one from his church in my life otherwise, and I have 
baptized quite a number. He certainly misunderstood us in 
regard to our practice. If this church has done otherwise, it is 
an exception ; this is not regular, and ought not to be practiced. 
The statement which the gentleman has made, that we receive 



472 (Baptist Church Claims. 

members on their plan, is not practiced by the Baptists any- 
where, and is only an exception that he finds when they 
are received without baptism. 

But then, again, the Dr. says that our theory of depravity is 
wrong i If it is, dear friends, the Bible is wrong, it, seems to 
me. We are not the church, because we teach the Bible 
doctrine that men are dead in trespasses and sins, without God 
in the world — without spiritual life. Mr. Campbell taught 
the same doctrine of total hereditary depravity. He did not 
use the word "total;" but he taught that in all their moral 
powers men had this original taint of depravity. And that is 
the ground we occupy. But the gentleman's picture of total 
depravity is not found in our works. The authority that the 
Dr. quoted is from the Presbyterian Confession. He has a 
little overdrawn their picture of total depravity. But he must 
not quote Presbyterian doctrine as applicable to the Baptist 
church ! Our standard of depravity is that found in the word 
of God, that man is totally destitute of spiritual life. It is a con- 
dition of sin, and because of original sin. There is nothing 
wrong in our doctrine of depravity ; because no man can be 
saved by his own powers. He can not open his own eyes, or 
his understanding. It is said that these must be opened by 
the Son of God, who came to open the eyes of the blind. Now, 
suppose you pour the light of day upon the blind's eyes — this 
is a very good illustration — you may increase that light four- 
fold, till it scourges the very eyeballs, and it will not give sight. 
So you may pour the light of God's word on one who is spirit- 
ually blind, who is carnally minded, who is at enmity against 
God, and it will only intensify that enmity, unless the Spirit 
of the living God should attend that word and open his heart. 
[Time Expiked.] 



DR, LUCAS' TMTH REPLY. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, and Ladies 
and Gentlemen — We have to read a little variety, in order 
to spice up matters. I referred to the fact that our brethren 
paid the gentleman five dollars a day, part of the time, because 
he spoke of having to wait for me at Blandinville. Well, he 
has read some letters, and I will read a paper, and then read a* 
letter, and see what is stated. 

"It is here proper to state that Dr. Lucas was too sick at the 
time the discussion was to have commenced according to the 
first arrangement, and some very strong insinuations were 
thrown out by some that the Dr. was afraid to come to time. 
Elder Ray's business was of such a pressing character that he 
thought he could not wait ; and upon our brethren agreeing 
to pay him a consideration of $5 a day for his time, he con- 
cluded to await the Dr/s coming." 

That is the reference here in the paper, signed by John 
Houston, one of the most prominent and worthy men in that 
part of the country, whose word is his bond, and beyond sus- 
picion. This is the character of the man that wrote this let" 
ter. Now I will read you another interesting document : 

"Blandinville, III., March 21, 1873. 
"Brother Lucas — I have just received your letter, and 
perused its contents with interest. Elder Kay has wiggled 
precisely as I expected he would in reference to our paying 
him to stay. We bargained with Elder Delano, and paid to 
him five dollars per day for the space of four days, to induce 



474 (Baptist Church Claims. 

Elder Ray to remain here until you would be able to meet him 
in discussion. The arrangement had all the essentials of a 
contract. There was no misunderstanding in reference to 
any part. The consideration to be received, and the consider- 
ation to .be paid, were well defined, and were both rendered. 
The only point that can come now in controversy is in regard 
to the authority of Elder Delano to make the contract. He 
himself told me some time previous that he was acting, so far 
as he would presume to act at all, as the mouthpiece of Elder 
Ray, and such was evidently my understanding of the situa- 
tion when I made the bargain I have alluded to ; otherwise I 
should have sought Elder Kay as the man with whom to deal. 
Now, was he then acting and did he act without the knowl- 
edge of Elder Ray? Did he swindle me to the tune of $20, 
instead of frankly telling me that he had no authority to act ? 
A prominent Baptist hints to me this morning that the five 
dollars per day did not keep Elder Ray here — that he would 
have stayed anyhow. Then it follows that Elder Delano only 
pretended to permit me to hire his detention, and by so pre- 
tending extorted $20 from me to lighten his expenses. Very 
well, if agreeable to Elder Delano, so let the matter rest, so let 
it be understood in this community. 

"And now let me give you a few facts, facts that can be 
sworn to if necessary, by men in this town. First, when the 
proposition to pay Elder Ray $5 a day to remain was made 
to Elder Delano by one of our brethren, who had consulted 
with me, Elder Delano refused to contract until he should 
have obtained the consent of Elder Ray. Second, Elder De- 
lano and Elder Ray came together to the same place to consult 
further with my brethren in reference to some propositions, 
and Elder Ray refused to consider the subject until the offer 
should be made in writing by me. I then sent him the writ- 
ten offer through Elder Delano by the hand of a brother. 
Comment is unnecessary."* 

* "No such 'contract 1 was made. Bro. Ray remained at the request of the congregation. 
I pity the fause that can stoop to such means of support." — J. H. Delano. 



(Dr. Lucas' Tenth (Reply. 475 

So, that is the statement of a man that stands as high as any 
man in the State of Illinois for morality, for piety, and for 
truth. 

We will call your attention now to a statement or two in 
this work, lest I forget it, and then I wish to present another 
argument, as this is the last speech that I can introduce anything 
new, unless it be in reply to my friend, for I wish to get some 
other points before your minds. I stated that Mr. Smith was 
the head and founder of the General Baptist church, and now I 
give you the authority for that statement, p. 189 : "The Gen- 
eral Baptists maintain the doctrine of general redemption and 
the other points of the Armenian system ; and are agreed 
with the Particular Baptists only on the subject of baptism, 
worship, and church discipline. The founder of this deno- 
mination is said to have been a Mr. Smith, an Episcopal 
clergyman, who, resigning his living in the church, w r ent to 
Holland, where his principles were warmly opposed by Ains- 
worth and Robinson." Here it is affirmed that this Mr. Smith 
was the founder of the Baptist church. Now, with regard to the 
argument that we offer. We state, as the eighth argument, 
that their theory of the final perseverance of the saints is 
opposed to the teachings of the word of God, and consequent- 
ly they can not be the church of Christ. This is, with the 
other characteristics, an argument we have offered against the 
gentleman's proposition being true. Now, they aver that 
when a man is once converted and brought into the church 
that there is no possibility of his falling away. We state, with 
that theory that there are many passages of Scriptures that 
can not be reconciled with this theory of the gentleman's 
church. We cite you to a few passages, and only to a few 
out of the many that might be quoted. In Hebrews iv, 
9, we have it stated : "There remaineth therefore a rest to the 
people of God." 

In the 11th verse of the same chapter, Paul says : 



476 (Baptist Church Claims. 

"Labor, therefore, to enter into that rest, lest any man fall 
after the same example of unbelief;" referring to the departure 
of the Israelites from the service of God. "Labor, therefore, 
to enter into that rest, lest any man fall/* is the reason assign- 
ed here by the apostle. We undertake to say, there can be 
no force, there can be no point, there can be no propriety in 
the exhortation of the apostle here, unless it is possible for a 
man to fall away and finally fail to enjoy that crown offered to 
those that persevere in the service of God to the end. We 
have not only this declaration, but in 2d Peter, 1st chapter, 
beginning with the 5th verse, we have these words : "Add to 
your faith virtue.'' He speaks of the persons referred to in 
the previous part of the chapter, where the apostle says to 
them that "Ye have obtained a like precious faith with us 
through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus 
Christ. " And now, he says, "Add to your faith virtue; and 
to virtue knowledge ; and to knowledge temperance ; and to 
temperance patience ; and to patience godliness ; and to godli- 
ness brotherly kindness ; and to brotherly kindness charity/' 
Now, what? Why, "if you do these things, you shall never 
fall." I ask, what is the converse proposition ? If you do not 
these things, you shall fall. But if you do these things, you 
shall not be barren or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord 
and Saviour Jesus Christ. " For so an entrance shall be min- 
istered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of 
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." Now, the apostle says, 
wherefore the rather brethren give diligence to make your 
calling and election sure. Your election is not sure yet, and 
he exhorts them to make their calling and election sure by 
cultivating those virtues in their lives to which the apostle 
here refers. Then this passage, we say, teaches that if we fail 
to attend to the instructions of the apostle here that we will 
fall ; while, on the other hand, if we do these things we shall 
never fall. Then we find in Ezekiel xviii. 24, this language : 



(Dr. Lucas' Tenth (Reply. 477 

"When I say to the righteous man he shall surely live, yet 
if be turn away from his righteousness or doeth or commit- 
teth iniquity, shall he live ? He shall not surely live, he shall 
surely die." 

When God says to the righteous man, if you commit ini- 
quity — turn from your righteousness and commit iniquity — 
you shall not live, you shall surely die, I ask you, can language 
be plainer than this? Certainly, my dear friends, .there is no 
language that can be plainer with regard to the mat'ter and 
the points we have now before us. I will turn to the passage 
and read you the whole verse to which we have referred, just 
as it is presented in the book itself: 

"But when the righteous turneth aw r ay from his righteousness, 
and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abom- 
inations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his 
righteousness that he hath 'done shall not be mentioned : in 
his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he 
hath sinned, in them shall he die." 

Here then, you discover that a man may fall away and he 
shall die, he shall not live. He forfeits his right to live, by 
going away from righteousness, and commit iniquity. But 
we call your minds to 1st Corinthians, 9th chapter, and 27th 
verse. Here we have the language of Paul: " But I keep 
under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any 
means, when I have preached to others, I myself, should be a 
castaway." I ask you, upon what principle can this language 
be explained? Can this language be explained, unless it be 
upon the principle that there is a possibility of a man being 
converted, and in the kingdom, and yet becoming a castaway? 
That Paul was converted, no one will deny. That Paul was 
in the kingdom, no one will deny. And yet he taught, that 
it was necessary to keep his body under subjection, that lest 
after he had preached to others, that he himself should become 
a castaway; showing with all clearness that there is a possi- 



478 (Baptist Church Claims. 

bility of falling, and of being castaway, and forfeiting our 
right to the enjoyment of that blessedness, and of that glor- 
ious honor that is in reservation for those who run to the end 
of the race. We call your minds to one other passage, and 
we shall read in your hearing the 19th verse of the 22d chap- 
ter of Revelations : " If any man shall take away from the 
words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his 
part out of the book of life." I ask this question, has any one 
a part in the book of life who has not his name written in 
the book of life ? Have any their names written in the book of 
life who have not been converted, and adopted into his 
family, or become his children? I presume no one will an- 
swer in the negative. No one will say that the individual has 
his name written in the book of life, unless he is converted. 
We agree as to this point, that he must be converted, and be- 
come a child of God, to have his name written there in the 
book of life. Now, it is said, the man that takes away from 
the words of the prophecy of this book, God shall take away 
his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, 
and from the things which are written in this book. From 
the fact that his name is taken out of the book of life, and 
his part is taken out of the holy city, is evidence that he had 
become a convert of God, that his name was in that book, and 
that he had a part in that city, and failing to persevere in the 
service, he lost his right to these blessings and to his birth- 
right. It is affirmed by Paul, in the 6th chapter of the He- 
brews, that the individual, though he may have tasted of the 
good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, and 
though he may have been made a partaker of the Holy Spirit, 
yet, if he fall away, the apostle affirms that it is impossible 
to renew such a one to repentance. Here, then, you discover 
that Paul talks about a man falling away, who has tasted of 
the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 
and has been made a partaker of the Holy Spirit. Yet Paul 



(Dr. Lucas' Tenth (Reply. 479 

talks about that very individual falling away. Then, we say, 
the gentleman's church is wrong upon this point, and that 
it fails in this particular to possess the characteristics of the 
true church of Christ. The last argument that we present is 
this, that eternal life is suspended upon faithfulness. The 
apostles always taught the disciples to add to their faith, to 
fight the good fight of faith, that they might lay hold upon 
eternal life. This is the instruction and exhortation given 
them, in order to induce them to go forward, in order to 
enjoy the blessing, that there was a condition presented 
upon which all these eternal blessings were suspended, and 
that only by observing the conditions can we enjoy those eter- 
nal honors and favors. The gentleman fails, then, to instruct 
according to the primitive teachings, and to present these mo- 
tives to induce obedience; for he says, that converted they 
will enjoy this blessedness whether they persevere or not, that 
perseverance is not necessary, that faithfulness is not necessa- 
ry if they have properly been converted to God, in order to 
enjoy the blessings of the eternal life, for they can not fall 
away, and that they will enjoy these blessings, though they 
may fail to persevere. Having now presented this argument, 
we desire your attention to some points presented by the gen- 
tleman in his address. 

He reads from Romans, to show that it is by faith that we 
are justified without obedience to God; and he tells you that 
we have taken the position that it was by works of right- 
eousness in connection with it. So far as works of righteousness, 
as presented by Paul, are concerned, we take no such position ; 
but we do say, in the language of Paul, that when those Eomans 
obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine, they were then 
made free from sin, they become the servants of righteousness, 
and all who thus are made free from sin become the servants 
of righteousness, and have their fruit unto holiness, and in the 
end everlasting life. John says : " He who doeth righteousness 



480 (Baptist Church Claims. 

is righteous, even as he is righteous/' and he says, "Little 
children, let no man deceive you by preaching something else/' 
"He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is 
righteous." If the gentleman wishes to form an issue with the 
apostle, then let him form that issue and not tell just what John 
has affirmed. With regard to his quotation from the apostle 
Paul referring to the question of justification by faith being 
imputed for righteousness, Paul discussed the same subject 
that James presents to our view, the faith of Abraham, where 
it is affirmed that Abraham's faith was imputed unto him for 
righteousness. Let us see what James says on that same 
subject. We find in the 2d chapter of James, commencing 
with the 20th verse : " But wilt thou know, O vain man, that 
faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father 
justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon 
the altar ? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, 
and by works was faith made perfect ? And the Scripture 
was fulfilled" — now, mark, "and the Scripture was fulfilled 
which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto 
him for righteousness: and he was called the friend of God." 
Then you discover that the Scripture, with regard to Abra- 
ham, as presented by Paul and James, refers to the very same 
case ; they quote the same language, and say the Scriptures 
are fulfilled, when Abraham offered his son Isaac upon the 
altar, that this Scripture was fulfilled which saith: "Abra- 
ham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteous- 
ness/' James told the truth, and that he refers to the same 
thing that Paul referred to is clear, from the fact that he 
mentions the very same declaration. My friend has told us 
that his church is in the wilderness. Well, we will simply 
deny it. The gentleman's church never was in the wilderness 
here referred to. It may have been in the wilderness, away 
back in Jud'ea, the wilderness of Judea; it may have been 
there, and my candid impression is, that while the gentleman 



(Dr. Lucas ; Tenth (Reply. 481 

goes away back there to find his establishment, in the wilder- 
ness of Judea, my impression is, that it never has passed out 
of that wilderness, but that it is there yet, and is not likely 
to ever get out. 

My friend speaks of succession again. He holds to the 
subject with a firm, determined grasp. Succession again, 
and he calls upon Benedict and Eobinson, and other Baptist 
authorities, to prove his proposition. We have quoted in your 
hearing the language of Benedict, where he says : " We base 
no claim at all upon an unbroken line of succession ; we do 
not found our claim as a church upon this succession ;" and 
not only so, but he quotes from Eobinson — one of the gentle- 
man's own historians, and one of the gentleman's witnesses — 
where Eobinson says — and Benedict indorses the statement — 
where he says, that a church needs not this unbroken succes- 
sion. We quote not now precisely his language, as it has been 
before you so often, and you recollect the point presented : 
"No church, except a church founded upon tradition, and not 
upon the word of God, needs the succession referred to, this 
unbroken line and chain of succession" — that church founded 
upon superstition needs the succession, but not the church 
founded upon the word of God, the immutable truth, and 
undying truth of the word of God. And, also, this Encyclo- 
pedia, as we have quoted time and again, affirms the same 
thing. — [Time Expired.] 



ELDER RAY'S LAST ADDRESS. 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen — I stand before you in my closing speech on 
this proposition. As regards the letter and paper read by 
my friend, I will simply state that, to my mind, it is just a 
little development of the doctrine of total depravity that men 
rely upon sometimes when they fail to meet argument as 
they should. The statement in the last part of that letter, 
that I employed Brother Delano to make a contract with the 
Disciples, is certainly untrue. There is not a word of truth in 
it I protested against his receiving anything from those 
people, because I knew they wished to get some sort of a 
handle against D. B. Ray. The voice of a great congregation 
voted that I should stay at Blandinville, and give them op- 
portunity of hearing the discussion. I stayed there because I 
believed the cause of Christ demanded it These were the motives 
that prompted me. There is no necessity, in this discussion, of 
impugning my motives. 

But, a word in regard to our communion. I will state, 
that it is ever recognized as the right of each congregation to 
attend to its own discipline. As my worthy friend, and 
Brother Cook, has said, the membership of this church can 
not go and call a pastor to another church, or complain if they 
are not allowed to do it. For instance, in London, where there 
are 140 Baptist churches, I believe, and about 40 in Phila- 
delphia, suppose they were to invite everybody who claimed 
to be Baptists; then those excluded from fellowship might 
commune, and even the most abandoned could come, that do 



Elder (Ray's Last ^Address. 483 

not belong to any church. This would be the result, because 
they are not acquainted with everybody, and whether they 
are or not, it is right that the churches preserve the purity of 
their fellowship. It is proper that they do that which is in 
accordance with the practices of the apostles and the word 
of the living God. But I have not time to devote to that 
question now, as I must proceed with my recapitulation. 
Before doing so, I must notice a very few statements my 
friend has made in regard to the Baptists — his objections to 
the Baptists, as mentioned in his last speech. He says that 
he had remarked that Mr. John Smith, or Mr. Smith — I 
don't believe he said John Smith, but I suppose that is the 
gentleman he was trying to talk about. He affirmed that 
Smith was the founder and father of the General Baptists. 
This is the first time he said so. Dr. , you said that he was the 
founder of the Regular Baptists the other time. It seems 
that you are so badly posted concerning Baptist affairs, that 
you have mixed things up. I will state that John Smith, like 
Roger Williams, was said to have been baptized by one of his 
brethren. He w T as not baptized in England at all. This 
fact is necessary to be noticed : that, as I have already proved, 
the English Baptists did not receive their baptism from John 
Smith, and yet the charge is made. It is true that there are 
those that have been called General and Particular Baptists in 
England, and some of these General Baptists — they do not 
differ in church organization — have gone off " into mixed com- 
munion," as it is called, under the influence and leadership of 
Robert Hall. Smith was not their founder. 

The Baptist denomination in America received their direct 
line of succession from the Particular Baptists in England. 
The phrase Particular Baptists — the gentleman has been misled 
in the use of the term. When you leave those out, that are 
called Seventh-Day Baptists, who are mostly in the East, and 
have no connection with us, we have then the great Baptist 



484 (Baptist Church Claims. 

denomination. And it does seem strange that the gentleman, 
in discussing with one who belongs to a church of larger 
adult membership than any, I will say, upon the continent of 
America, should affect ignorance as to which denomination I 
belong. I trust that by this time he has had a little more light 
upon that subject. But he said he could not tell at the begin- 
ning of the discussion ! He says our theory is wrong about 
the perseverance of the saints, because we do not teach that 
some of God's people may go down to the dark world of hell 
— we are not the church of Christ ! 

I have no time to mention all the objections. In a former 
discussion he seemed to make a point that because I did not 
answer all the objections individually, but did it under one 
argument, that I could not do so. And now, if I do not men- 
tion all, forsooth, he will say, I can not answer his arguments! 

But I believe God's word is true, when he says, " whosoever 
believeth in him hath eternal life/' and if he can prove that 
everlasting, eternal life means only a few days, then he gets 
apostasy ; and if he can not prove this, apostasy goes by the 
board, and his interpretations of these passages are not true. 
But I will turn to one, if I have time, just a moment, to allude 
to it, where Paul says, If they shall fall away, it is impossible 
to renew them again under repentance. This proves, to my 
friend, that there are some that do fall away ! But don't you 
know the gentleman said, "if he had the money, he could buy 
the rolling mills. There is the 'if there. If they shall fall away, 
it is impossible to renew them again to repentance. The doctrine 
of his church I understand to be a restoration after they fall 
away. And then, after they get out from the church, they are 
children of Satan. 

Paul says : If they shall fall aivay, it is impossible to renew to 
repentance, but according to me practice of his church, even 
when they go out of the church, and become children of 
Satan, they may come again a second time, and be taken in 



Elder (kay's Last Address. 485 

without baptism I It takes at first baptism to save them, but 
when they become apostate sinners, who can not be received 
to repentance, they can get salvation without baptism ! This 
is one of the absurdities his church gets Him into. I asked 
him about it in a former discussion, but he didn't answer the 
question. Well, he said, if a member of the church erred, he 
ought to be restored. My friend was talking about a mem- 
ber of the church ; I asked about one who had been baptized, 
and afterward became a child of Satan. But his church will 
restore this apostate child of Satan without baptism ! I had 
asked, and ask again, if baptism is essential to pardon, and 
apostasy is true, how are you going to restore without baptism 
any, " if they shall fall away V 

Paul's argument in the 15th ch. 1st Cor., where he says: 
"If the dead rise not, then is Christ not raised." Now, ac- 
cording to the gentleman's argument, it may be contended 
that the resurrection is not true, because there are at least 
half a dozen " ifs" in regard to the resurrection ! 

Concerning the resurrection, Paul argued geometrically. 
He stated his position hypothetically, and drew the absurd 
conclusion, in order to establish the truth of the proposition. 
And so in Heb. vi. 6 : "If they shall fall," there is no more 
repentance. Because there would be no more repentance if 
one should fall, is Paul's argument against falling. This 
agrees with his statement in the 17th verse of the same chap- 
ter, " Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the 
heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed 
it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it 
was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong conso- 
lation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope 
set before us : Which hope we have as an anchor of the 
soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within 
the veil." Here is the eternal counsel of God, and oath, that 
the Christian's hope is sure and steadfast. These two immu* 



486 (Baptist Church Claims. 

table things, God's counsel and oath, must be changed before one 
of His children is lost. I believe that it would be as easy 
to seize the throne of the eternal God, and hurl it into confu- 
sion, as to destroy one of God's " elect." I mean the true 
believer in Christ, who has been made so " through sanctifica- 
tion of the spirit, and belief of the truth.' 1 "If it were 
possible," says Jesus, "they, false teachers deceive the very 
elect." I thank God for his promise of salvation. It would 
be but little consolation to me to know that after all my toils, 
and trials, and sorrows, that I have a Saviour that will not 
save to the uttermost. . No, brethren, it is a hope, sure and 
steadfast, that enters to that within the veil. 

But the righteous man turning away from righteousness 
(Ezekiel xviii. 24) — referring to his own overt acts of righteous- 
ness, when he turns away ; it only develops that fact, that his 
heart is corrupt, that he is not a child of God. Men are ad- 
dressed according to the profession. This passage does not 
refer to the condition of the heart, but simply refers to man's 
actions. A man turns away from his own righteousness — 
righteous acts. You know a man may for awhile be right- 
eous in his acts without being a child of God. Paul supposes 
that he might bestow all his goods to feed the poor, and give his 
body to be burned, and have not charity, and when he turns away 
in his acts, *he develops his want of righteousness in his heart. 

Now, my friend misrepresented us. We do not say that it 
makes no difference what we do, we will be saved anyhow. 
, He never heard a Baptist say that — never. We are " created 
in Christ Jesus unto good works." 

The passage in Kevelations — I must mention it, and if I go 
a few minutes over, you can give my friend the same time. 
" If any man shall take away from the words of the book of 
this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book 
of life, and out of the holy city." Now, what part has such 
an one there ? Why, he has a professional part — a claim ; 



Elder (Ray's Last Address. 487 

that is all. The Saviour called Judas a friend as he came to 
betray him. He was not a friend in heart, neither was he 
converted. He was a professed friend. Though there is none 
righteous, no, not one, Jesus said that "there is more joy in 
heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and 
nine just persons that need no repentance." I illustrate it 
this way. There is an estate that is to be inherited, and there 
are quite a number of heirs, that put in a claim to the in- 
heritance. They all have a part in the estate, at least pro- 
fessedly. The difficulty comes before the court, and it is 
decided that one man's claim is not lawful. His part is taken 
out. That is the way, I understand, when the time comes for 
the secrets of all hearts to be revealed, the man that takes 
from God's word, his part is taken out of the book of life and the 
city of God. 

I must believe the Bible, that says : "Whosoever is born of 
God doth not commit sin ; for his seed remaineth in him, and 
he can not sin, because he is born of God." Sin has no more 
dominion in the soul. It is the spirit which is born of the spirit. 
The sin that is committed afterward originates through the 
unrenewed nature — the carnal man. Paul explains it in Eom. 
vii. The gentleman has said that our theory of repentance is 
wrong, and our theory of communion is wrong. I wish to 
read what Alexander Campbell says. I intended to i?ead it 
before, but the book had fallen off the desk. He says, in the 
Christian System, p. 122: "The belief of one fact, and 
that upon the best evidence in the world, is all that is required, as 
far as faith goes to salvation. The belief of this ONE fact, (tnd 
submission to one institution expressive of it, is all that is re- 
quired of Heaven to admission into the church.'* 

Again, p. 122, Christian System : "Every such person is a 
disciple in the fullest sense of the word, the moment he has 
believed this one fact, upon the above evidence, and has sub- 
mitted to the above mentioned institution ; and whether he 



488 (Baptist Church Claims. 

believes the five points condemned, or the five points approved 
by the Synod of Dort, is not so much as asked of him ; wheth- 
er he holds any of the views of the Calvinists, or Arminians, 
Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, or Qua- 
kers, is never once to be asked of such persons, in order to 
admission into that Christian community, called the church. 1 ' 
All the gentleman's arguments against us have been foreign 
from the subject, according to Mr. Campbell himself. He 
contends that men may hold all these different views, whether 
Quakers or Methodists in their views, or whether they hold 
the five points approved or the five points condemned by the 
Synod of Dort, it don't matter as regards entering the church. 
My friend's own church does not believe in the validity of his 
arguments. He has not made an argument against Baptists 
that is sound with his own people. 

But to the recapitulation. I have shown, dear friends, that 
the Baptists possess the Bible characteristics which entitle them 
to be regarded as the visible church or kingdom of Jesus 
Christ. We do not mean by this that all the Christians in 
the world believe with us. We believe that a man ought to 
be a child of God, an heir of heaven, before he is authorized 
to unite with the church of the living God. We believe that 
there are other sheep which are not of this fold, and that God 
will finally bring them in, and ultimately there will be but 
one Shepherd and one fold. We believe that there are some 
among the nations saved that do not compose a part of that 
great city that symbolizes the church. We believe that there 
are those who will be at the marriage of the Lamb, that form 
no part of the organized bride, the Lamb's wife. We regard 
these as wonderful and glorious truths revealed in God's 
precious word. 

First. I have shown that there is a succession of the church 
of the living God. I appealed to Daniel, that the kingdom 
set up by the God of heaven shall stand forever ; that it should 



Elder (Ray's Last Address. 489 

never be destroyed. I appealed to Daniel vii. 27, that it was an 
everlasting kingdom. I have shown from the words of Jesus, 
that the gates of hell should not prevail against it ; and from the 
angel, that of Sis kirigdom there shall be no end; and from Paul, 
that it was a kingdom not to be moved. Thus, then, I have de- 
monstrated that a succession of the church must exist somewhere. 
Whether we can trace it by uninspired history or not, that 
succession does exist. And I have shown that it can not belong 
to the Romish church, which is the great Babylonish Anti- 
christ ; and I have shown there is no other party to put in a 
claim except the Baptists, outside of the church of Rome ; 
and therefore the succession simply falls to us by inheritance. 
I have shown that the Baptists are the church of the living 
God, if there is one that has the succession. And I have 
shown from the testimony of the leading men of the gentle- 
man's church that the succession does exist. Mr. Lard says 
there is a succession, and he also denies the gentleman's criti- 
cism about the rock. I have given you the testimony of 
Mr. Lipscomb, one of his prominent men in Tennessee, who 
contends for that succession. Also, Tolbert Fanning says, 
that the church of the living God has outrode the rough waves of 
eighteen centuries. So Ben. Franklin testifies; so all these 
mighty men of his church testify that that church has stood 
all the time. Alexander Campbell contended f6r the perpe- 
tuity of the church ; and more than that, that the Baptists 
possessed that kingdom until his Reformation. Mr. Campbell was 
the founder of the gentleman's church, a great man, who has 
passed away. He said that the Baptists could trace their 
principles and practices in every essential particular in a direct 
line up to the apostolic age, as shown in this discussion. And 
Mr. Campbell has said of these ancient witnesses, that it does 
not matter about the name, whether they were called Nova- 
tians, Waldenses, or by any other nickname, but that they 
were members of the church of the living God. I have shown 



490 - (Baptist Church Claims. 

that the Baptists claim this succession, and although a great 
many do not think it very important to trace it out from the 
historic standpoint, yet they stand united that the succession ex- 
ists. Also, it is proved from God's word, and from ecclesiastical 
history outside of the Bible. I have shown that no church 
originating since the time of Christ and his apostles upon earth 
can possibly be the original church of Christ. Therefore we 
have the right to that claim, because we have the succession. 
But at this point I wish attention to the testimony of two 
of the most learned historians in the kingdom of Holland, 
Ypeij and Dermout, appointed to write the history of the 
Dutch Reformed Church, -two learned Pedobaptists, who had 
access to all the archives and libraries of Germany. They affirm 
that the "Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in 
later times Mennonites, were the original Waldenses; and have 
long in the history of the church received the honor of that 
origin. On this account the Baptists may be considered as tlw 
only Christian community which has stood since the days of the 
apostles, and as a Christian society, which has preserved pure the 
doctrines of the gospel through all ages." The gentleman tried to 
to make the impression that I quoted from Baptist authority 
in reference to this matter, when the truth is this quotation is 
found in the Keligious Encyclopedia, from historians who are 
not Baptists, but who are as reliable men as ever lived. The 
gentleman said thafl have not the historic statements to prove 
that the Baptists existed before the year 1552! And yet 
these learned historians say that such was the fact. And 
Mosheim has said the same that the Baptist church goes back 
i up the stream of time, so far that their origin is hid in the re- 
mote depths of antiquity. 

Second. We have shown from ample testimony, that the Bap- 
tists possess the Bible characteristics of the church of Christ, from the 
fact that they have no founder or head other than Jesus Christ. I 
have called in stentorian voice upon the gentleman to tell us, 



Elder (fray's Last Address. 491 

if Jesus Christ did not found the church known as the Baptist 
church, who did? And he has not responded, and he will 
not, because he can not. On that point he is as silent as the 
grave. Again, I ask who did found the Baptist church, if Jesus 
Christ did not f Let a man ask me who founded any church 
that sets up a claim as being the church of Christ, and I will 
answer the question from a historic standpoint. I will bring 
forward the proof; I will not — like the gentleman — affirm 
thus and so, without bringing forward the proof. 

In the third place, I have shown that the Baptists were the 
martyr church through the dark ages. I have shown that the 
members of that church suffered when all the rest of the 
" Christian" world were symbolizing with Home. They suffered 
long before the time of Luther and Calvin, for the cause of 
Christ and for his kingdom, and hundreds of thousands, yes 
millions, of our denomination have died for the truth that we 
advocate, while storm after storm of persecution swept over 
the church of the living God. But that church was founded 
upon the rock, and it has stood against all attempts that have 
been made to destroy it. And the gentleman's arguments, 
introduced on this occasion, and brought to bear upon the 
proposition, will not move this church of the living God that 
has stood so long. All his logic and power will not affect it! 
It has stood the storms of ages, and it will stand through all 
coming time. I have shown the history of this church, step 
by step, and I wish it written in large capitals in the book, 

THAT THE GENTLEMAN HAS NOT CALLED IN QUESTION THE 

authorities that i have introduced. I have introduced 
quotation after quotation, both from his church and outside, which 
he has not called in question. I have shown that the Baptist 
church is the martyr church, that it is on the foundation of 
"the apostles and the prophets — Jesus Christ himself being the 
chief corner-stone ; " we acknowledge no other doctrine than 
that of Christ and his apostles. 



492 (Baptist Church Claims. 

I have quoted from the authorities, to prove that the Bap- 
tist church has the right foundation. Other foundation can 
no man lay than Jesus Christ 

Fifth. I have shown that it receives the proper materials. 
None but those who are God's true children, born again, those 
who profess to be God's children, having repented of sins, and 
believed in Jesus Christ, have the right to membership in the 
church of God. How have these arguments been answered? 
The Dr. has attempted to answer some, and some he has 
passed by in silence. My first argument, if he answered it, I 
don't remember it at all. I don't think he attempted to reply 
to the first argument. And the second, in regard to the his- 
toric line of succession, his answer has simply been a few 
denials. The quotations made from Benedict, and the Ency- 
clopedia, show that we do not claim it is necessary to trace the 
succession, in order to regulate our faith and practice ; and 
yet these same writers affirm that the succession does exist, and 
must exist. 

Sixth. We have the Bible characteristic in reference to the 
order : repentance, faith, the burial in baptism, and the Lord's 
table in the Lord's kingdom, as established by the Son of God 
himself. How has he answered these arguments ? Some of 
them he has not mentioned, especially where Jesus says, "ye 
repented not afterward that ye might believe him/' Has he 
dared to touch that ? No, he has not. Our Saviour makes 
repentance in order to faith ; repentance, faith and baptism is 
the divine order. The apostle said that he testified to the 
Jews and Greeks repentance toward God, and faith toward our 
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. And yet the gentleman at- 
tempts to argue that we are not the church of Christ, simply 
because we follow the direction and example of Jesus, and the 
preaching of Paul. And I called attention to the order of 
the three witnesses : the Spirit, the water, and the blood. The 
Dr. has failed to mention these witnesses, or to show that they 



Elder (Ray's Last Address. 493 

do not testify in the proper order. The examples he referred 
to are not in point. John iii. 5, " born of water and the 
spirit." He assumed that born of water means baptism, which 
it does not; for "that which is born of the spirit, is spirit," 
but if it was baptism, it would be the flesh born again! 

Seventh. I pass to another characteristic. We hold the 
true church government — the Bible alone, as our only rule of 
faith and practice. He has called this in question. 

Eighth. But we have shown that the Baptist church has 
passed through the wilderness of obscurity, which is a charac- 
teristic of the true church. The gentleman has attempted to 
make a little play in regard to this obscurity, and he thinks 
that they are in the wilderness yet. But, brethren, there was 
a time when the church of the living God, symbolized by 
woman, had the wings of a great eagle given to her, and she 
did fly from the face of the old dragon, the serpent, that cast 
out of its mouth a flood of water to destroy the church of the 
living God. But the church was preserved from the face of 
the dragon for 1260 long years — 1260 prophetic days. She 
testified in sackcloth as the church of the living God. And 
this brings us down to the times of the Reformation, and 
from this time we have the record through Mosheim and 
others, that the Baptists, as the members of the true church, 
did appear in several countries at the same time ; and accord- 
ing to Mosheim, it was difficult to tell where they did ori- 
ginate ! As soon as the persecutions were partly removed, 
they came out of the wilderness, and were made manifest to 
the world, as before they had been hid in the wilderness. It 
is true that Ave have some glimpses of the wilderness history 
— footprints of the bride in the desert. 

We have the evidences of the persecutions she endured, 
preserved by Papist councils and otherwise. She was in the 
wilderness of obscurity, suffering for the cause of Christ — 
not in the wilderness in the sense of apostasy into false 



494 (Baptist Church Claims. 

doctrine, but in the wilderness of obscurity, where she pre- 
served her purity as the church of the living God. And, 
dear brethren, I love to contemplate that prophetic song 
of Solomon, that describes the bride — that church in the 
wilderness — in which the bridegroom is made to say: " O, 
my dove, thou art in the clefts of the rock, in the secret 
places of the stairs, let me see thy countenance, let me hear 
thy voice ; for sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is 
comely." Then, again, " Who is she that looketh forth as the 
morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an 
army with banners ?" " Who is this that cometh up from the 
wilderness, leaning upon her beloved ? " We believe it is the 
persecuted bride of the Lamb, the church of the living God. 
I thank God for that prophetic description of the marriage of 
the Lamb at last. 

I know that my time has nearly expired, and I desire in 
conclusion, to thank the congregation for their patient atten- 
tion, while I enjoyed the privilege that I have had for 
presenting the claims of that church, that is now called the 
Baptist Church ; a church whose founder and head, the gen- 
tleman can not find this side of the Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ. The marriage of the Lamb is yet to come. I often 
think of the marriage song that is mentioned in Rev. xix : 
Whose volume will come like the voice of seven-fold thunders, 
saying, alleluia for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his 
wife hath made herself ready. Or, as it reads thus: " And I 
heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the 
voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, 
saying, Alleluia : for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Let 
us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him : for the marriage 
of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." 
And then that glorious period will have come, when the holy 
city will be seen descending from God out of heaven, having 
beeii caught up to meet the bridegroom who is coming ; and 



Elder (kay's Last Address. 495 

then there will be no more cursa> no more sin, or death, when 
we will see eye to eye, and speak the same things, and there 
will be none to molest or make us afraid in all the holy moun- 
tain of God. — [Time Expired.] 



\ 



DR. LUCAS' LAST REPLY, 



Mr. President, Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and 
Gentlemen — Before I proceed, I will simply turn to the 
reference that my friend made to the subject of depravity. 
Referring to Mr. Goodnight and Mr. Houston, I am certain 
that those gentlemen can weigh, morally, with my friend, or 
any one else in this house. That question is fully understood 
by every one who knows those gentlemen. They stand with- 
out reproach, and beyond suspicion. That is all I have to say 
now upon that subject, and the question of total depravity 
may be as clearly made out with regard to my friend as with 
regard to these individuals. I trust I will have the attention 
of the audience, as this is the close of the discussion, until I 
get through. Before I proceed to notice the claim that my 
friend has tried to make, and that is necessary to be made, I 
call your minds again to the language of Mosheim, found on 
page 500, where he speaks of the Particular Baptists and the 
General Baptists. My friend claims the succession through 
the Particular Baptists, not through the General Baptists. 
Hear what Mosheim says upon this subject. Speaking of the 
General Baptists: "Now, they agree with the Particular Bap- 
tists in this circumstance, that they admit to baptism adult 
persons only, and administer that sacrament by dipping or 
total immersion ; but they differ from them in another respect, 
that is, in repeating the administration of baptism to those who 
have received it either in a state of infancy or by aspersion 
instead of dipping, for, if the common account may be be- 
lieved, the Particular Baptists do not carry matters so far." 



(Dr. Lucas' Last (Reply. 497 

Here is one of the links through which the gentleman proposes 
to trace his church. Mosheim, whom my friend has intro- 
duced a number of times, is a reliable historian. He says I 
have not impeached his authorities. I have not. I believe 
that Mosheim is a good historian. He says the Particular 
Baptists were not like the General Baptists in this particular, 
they do not baptize over again those who have been baptized 
in infancy, and they do not rebaptize those who have been 
baptized by aspersion. That is the testimony of Mosheim 
with regard to the Particular Baptists, one of the links through 
which the gentleman proposes to trace his church. We stated 
in the beginning, that in order to fix his succession he must 
show as he passed through the Mennonites, Anabaptists and 
Waldenses ; that while the Baptist church was divided into at 
leaist ten different families or denominations, the church 
of Christ is not a denomination — as the Baptists are divided 
into branches. We have shown that he must select his mem- 
ber of that family. He must select from the Mennonites. 
He must show that the Baptist family with which he sustains 
connection possesses precisely the characteristics of the family 
or branch of the Mennonites that he selects — that they are 
identical. Then, when he comes to the Anabaptists, he must 
show that the Mennonites, through whom he traces his suc- 
cession, are the particular family of the Anabaptists that he 
selects — are identical. Then he must take the same position 
in reference to the Waldenses, for, according to the history of 
the Waldenses, they practiced infant baptism. And we find 
that the Mennonites practiced aspersion. Hence the necessity 
of his selecting his particular member of these families. Then 
he must show that the Waldensian family that he selects is 
identical with the family selected among the Anabaptists ; and 
so on, back to the commencement of the church of Jesus 
Christ. And then he must show that the last link is identi- 
cal with the church of Christ. He must do this, or his sue- 



498 (Baptist Church Claims. 

cession fails. He must do this in order to prove the identity, 
and we both agree that identity is what is wanted. Then, he 
has failed to do this, and, indeed, he has made no effort to 
show that these different links hold the same doctrines as the 
Baptist church, and to-day he has not shown it, and I presume, 
for one of the very best reasons, that he knew it was utterly 
impossible for him to show the identity of these different links 
with these different families through which he proposes to 
trace his church. If he had the evidence, I am very certain 
he would not have failed to produce it ; but as it is, the entire 
result is only a grand failure. You have heard all that he 
has had to say upon the question, and we venture the asser- 
tion that you will bear testimony that be has not even tried, 
in these different links of what he calls his chain, to show 
identity with them. The truth is, the chain is a very short 
one, composed of only one link, and that the Baptist church 
to which he belongs. That is the length of his chain — that is 
all there is of it that he has proved. Nothing more. 

But in regard to some points presented in the gentleman's 
last address. He has told us again that the Baptist church 
was the martyr church. The argument that he proposes to 
make is this : That the Baptist church being the martyr 
church, therefore it must be the church of Christ. That is 
his argument. Now, I ask you to recollect your historical 
knowledge, and see if I do not state what your own judgment 
tells you is right. The Episcopal church is a martyr church. 
They have had their martyrs by hundreds and thousands, and 
therefore the Episcopal church is the church of Christ. Now, 
that is the argument, and we have two churches of Christ. 
The Presbyterian church is a martyr church, therefore the 
Presbyterian church is the church of Christ. We have three. 
The Quakers, as a body, was a martyr church, therefore they 
are the church of Christ. Now we have four. We might go 
on, and name others. Instead of the gentleman's argument 



(Dr. Lucas' Last (Reply. 499 



proving that the Baptist church is the church of Christ, 
he proves that we simply have four, or half a dozen at least, 
churches of Christ. The gentleman does not believe a word 
of that ; but it is a principle of logic that he who proves too 
much, proves nothing. The gentleman's argument proves 
more than he wanted to prove, therefore it proves nothing, 
because there is just as much in favor of one martyr church 
as there is in favor of another. It proves nothing on the 
subject. 

My friend has stated time and again that we have not 
proved thus and so. We have denied, we have said thus and 
so, but we have not proved it. Well, the gentleman has 
been on the proving side this time, and I think this audience 
will bear testimony that we have proved a great deal. But 
the gentleman says, thus and so, I affirm that this is true, or, 
I get up and deny, as I am on the negative side. When he 
comes up before this people and says, " Now for your proof 
that it is not so." He has asserted that Jesus Christ is the 
head of the Baptist church. I have denied it. Has he proved 
it? He comes up and tells the audience I ought to prove 
that Jesus Christ is not the head of the Baptist church, and 
then he ought to tell who is the head of the Baptist church. 
What^ does it concern me who is its head, if Jesus Christ is 
not its head ? I ask him what does it concern me if the gen- 
tleman fails to show that Jesus Christ is the head of the Bap- 
tist church. I have denied it, and I ask, does it look like a 
strong debater, or a man that feels confidence in his position, 
to stand up here and say, "Now, then, if Jesus Christ is not 
the head of it, then I want you to prove that somebody else 
is." The gentleman has been on the proving side on this 
proposition, and he has been placed under the necessity of 
proving what he asserts. The rules of discussion would not 
require me to prove a single thing, but simply to show that his 
witnesses do not prove what he affirms they do. I think 1 



500 (Baptist Church Claims. 

have shown this in this discussion. The gentlemen then, in- 
stead of proving this proposition, goes back to the old pro- 
position. I have been satisfied all the time that he was not 
satisfied with the effort that he made under that proposition, 
and consequently he has been going back constantly, and say- 
ing the Dr. said so and so, and this and that, under the 
form of the discussion of the proposition, that we first had in 
their debate, showing clearly that he was not satisfied with 
the discussion, upon that proposition. He could get along a 
great deal better, and run back there, and talking about this 
and that, rather than in trying to prove his proposition. We 
are perfectly satisfied with the discussion that we have made 
on our affirmation, and we are willing that it shall go to the 
world just that way. The arguments we offered we believe to 
be conclusive, and we are willing to abide the decision of the 
community. Do you recollect the reply that my friend made 
in regard to the argument on perseverance ? He gets up and 
says that the gentleman objects to it. Why? because he 
says the children of God will not be lost. The true issue 
then is, that there is a possibility of falling away from grace, 
and that it is necessary to persevere in order to keep from 
falling away. Then he says that in these passages, that the 
inspired teacher when God speaks to persons as though they 
were so and so, and occupied a certain condition, when really 
they do not. 

I wonder if Paul is one of that class. Paul says, "I keep my 
body under subjection, lest after I have preached to others I 
myself might become a castaway." If there was no other pas- 
sage than this one, it alone sets aside the gentleman's doctrine. 
For there is no other meaning in Paul's language than that there 
is a possibility of being a castaway, being deprived of the 
enjoyment of the blessing of eternal life. 

But we must look to our review. I want to know how much 
the gentleman passed over the regular time ? 



(Dr. Lucas' Last (Reply. 501 

Mr. Glover (one of the Moderators) — You have now about 
fifteen minutes. 

Dr. Lucas — I come then to the argument offered against 
the gentleman's proposition. The gentleman has affirmed that 
his church was established in the days of John the Baptist, 
during the personal ministry of Christ, and then when he was 
pressed upon that point with regard to certain passages, he 
says the apostles were not called until after John was in prison, 
and Jesus never gave the kingdom to the apostles until he 
went away. That count brings us forty days this side of 
the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Forty days after 
his resurrection he ascended to the Father, and consequently 
according to his own admission, the church was not established 
in the days of John. Again, we called attention to certain 
passages in regard to this matter; one, where the disciples 
expected the kingdom immediately to appear, showing that it 
had not appeared. We call attention to the language of Jesus, 
as found in Matthew xvi. 18 : Upon this rock I will build my 
church. Here, then, it is affirmed as still future, and Jesus 
went away to receive his kingdom. He went away forty days 
after his resurrection to receive his kingdom, showing that he 
had not yet received his kingdom. Many other passages we 
quoted upon this subject that we have not now time to repeat. 
But these show the kingdom at that time as future, and that 
the kingdom was fully set up in the days of John the Baptist, 
but was prospective. The second argument that we offered 
was this : that the gentleman was wrong in regard to its name, 
that he had not the scriptural name for his church. There 
is but one being in the Bible that ever has been called Baptist, 
and that was John the harbinger of Jesus. 

Thirdly, we have shown that they are not built on the 
true foundation. He says, his church was built before the 
death of Christ, and during his personal ministry. We have 
shown that Jesus entered not into the foundation until he 



502 (Baptist Church Claims. 

became the tried stone ; that he was tried by his suffering, the 
temptation of Satan, and his death upon the cross ; therefore 
he could not be the foundation, the tried stone, before that 
time ; that after he was tried, the builders rejected him, and 
he became the head of the corner. And also in Ephesians — I 
quoted the passage, showing that the church was not built 
upon that foundation until after the middle wall of partition 
was taken away by Jesus nailing it to his cross. Bringing us 
this side of the time when the gentleman says his church 
was built. He is wrong, fourthly, in regard to man's moral 
nature, teaching that he is totally depraved. He objected to 
our reading from the Westminster Confession ; but, then, we 
take the words, " total/' just as they are, and, I ask you, what 
is the idea conveyed ? total, entire, universal depravity, cor- 
ruption. I ask you, then, if this corruption is entire and uni- 
versal, is not the very idea, depraved totally, in every faculty 
of his soul, and every member of his body, embodied and em- 
braced in the term, a total depravity? That is just precisely 
what we quoted. He is wrong here, because the Bible teaches 
that man can come to the Saviour. The reason why he does 
not live is, because he will not come, not because he can not. 
He will not come, is the language of the word of God. Fifth- 
ly, his theory of conversion is wrong, and must of necessity 
be so, from their doctrine and theory of man's moral nature. 
Mr. Williams, as we have quoted, and the gentleman has not 
denied it, affirms, upon the ground that man is the subject of 
total depravity, that in order to his conversion there must be 
a supernatural operation of the Spirit of God. In answer to 
this, we say, that such an operation would bring into exist- 
ence as great a miracle as ever has been performed or re- 
corded in history, since the morning stars sang together and 
all the sons of God shouted for joy. He is wrong in his 
theory of conversion, as a supernatural operation of the Spirit 
of God, and wrong in regard to his faith alone. We have 



(Dr. Lucas' Last (Reply. 503 

shown you that it is not faith alone ; that faith alone is dead. 
That obedience in connection with faith is necessary in order 
to the remission of sins. " God be thanked, though ye were 
the servants of sin, ye have obeyed from the heart that form 
of doctrine delivered to you, being then made free from sin/' 
Obedience is necessary, then, as well as faith, in order to the 
remission of sins. I have shown you that the gentleman's theo- 
logy is wrong in regard to the relation that faith sustains to 
repentance. I have called your attention to the office of faith 
upon the human heart, that by faith the heart is purified, and 
as the result, godly sorrow is excited in the heart, as the re- 
sult of the office of faith upon the heart, and this godly sor- 
row being wrought in the heart, works repentance that needs 
not to be repented of. That repentance is the result, there- 
fore, of the office of faith upon the heart exhibited in the life, 
wrought by this godly sorrow, and this godly sorrow is the 
result of faith. 

We have shown you that Dr. Lynd indorses precisely our 
position here, when he affirms that he who truly believes will 
repent. We have shown you that Mr. Jeter indorses our 
position, when he states that faith is the commencement of 
spiritual life and the source of all true obedience ; and if it be 
the commencement of the spiritual life, if repentance is essen- 
tial to spiritual life, then is it the commencement of repentance; 
and if repentance is a part of true obedience, and faith is the 
source of all true obedience, then is faith the source of repent- 
ance, and, consequently, being its source, it must be before 
repentance. It must in the very nature of things exist before. 
And not only so, but the sixth argument was in regard to 
the knowledge of pardon. The gentleman is wrong upon 
that. We say the feeling of this one, and that one, and the 
other, — each has the same evidence ; showing clearly that the 
gentleman's witnesses are not reliable. 

But, seventh, the practice and observance of the Lord's 



504 (Baptist Church Claims. 

Supper are inconsistent and unscriptural in those that he 
admits as the children of God. Paul says to the children of 
God, "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat ;" but my 
friend says, no, we will examine you, and say to you, no, sir, 
you shall not eat. That is the practice of the gentleman's 
church. 

And, eighthly, we remarked that the gentleman is wrong, 
and his church is wrong, in regard to final perseverance. If 
the Scriptures teach anything at all, they teach that the 
man may fall away. Hence the common exhortation to go 
forward in the duties that Christianity imposes. 

And now, in conclusion, we ask you in all candor to think 
seriously while it is called to-day. Can you conclude that 
that church, wrong in its commencement, wrong in its name, 
wrong in its foundation, wrong in its theory of man's moral 
nature, wrong in its conversion, wrong in its theory in regard 
to the plan by which we obtain a knowledge of the pardon of 
sin, wrong on the subject of the Lord's Supper, and wrong 
on the subject of perseverance — I ask, can you conclude that 
a church wrong in all these points can be, and is, the church 
set forth in the word of God, established by Christ and his 
apostles ? Surely, my dear friends, such a conclusion can not 
be formed, reasoning properly, from the facts and the princi- 
ples that are here presented. We have shown in regard to 
the gentleman's church, that Mr. Way land does not regard it 
as anything but a sect among other sects. We have quoted 
his very language, "a sect among other sects;" no more than 
this, according to the statement of Way] and in his principles 
and practices of the Baptists, a sect among other sects. And, 
so far as the great question of succession is concerned, 
Benedict affirms that they found no claim upon the succes- 
sion ; and Robinson affirms, and Benedict indorses it, that they 
only, who found their claim and their church upon tradition, 
and not upon the word of God, need the succession; and 



(Dr. Lucas' Last (Reply. 505 

this author affirms the same thing — that they fail who found 
their claims upon tradition, and not upon the word of God. 
Then we ask you to take all these facts, all these arguments 
against his church, and then take the final point that the gen- 
tleman has made, and I ask you, can you say that he has 
shown the characteristics which entitles his church to be 
regarded as the church of Christ? And one other point I 
had like to have forgotten. We find that Daniel says, the 
beast made war, and prevailed against the saints, in the 7th 
chapter of his prophecy. John says, in the 13th chapter, 
" the beast made war against the saints and overcame them," 
and they were for a time subdued, but this triumph on the 
part of the beast is not to be final — will not be the end of the 
kingdom. The church in the end will triumph over all oppo- 
sition. — [Time Expired.] 



<3A 




Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



